extract_links

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (though an output schema exists). For a web scraping tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds specialized capabilities. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (link extraction with filtering), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the purpose and basic capabilities but lacks behavioral details like error conditions or performance characteristics, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive for informed tool selection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds some semantic context by mentioning filtering by domain, internal links, and domain exclusion, which aligns with the parameters in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no parameter descriptions, so the description only partially compensates. It doesn't explain the 'url' parameter or provide examples of domain formats, leaving room for improvement given the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Extract all links from a webpage' with a specific verb ('extract') and resource ('links from a webpage'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'scrape_webpage' or 'extract_structured_data' by focusing solely on link extraction, but doesn't explicitly contrast with these alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context by mentioning filtering capabilities ('filter links by domain, extract only internal links, or exclude specific domains'), suggesting when to use it for specialized link extraction. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like 'scrape_webpage' (which might also extract links) or 'extract_structured_data', and doesn't mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.