tooltrace_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a meaningful transformation behavior (normalizing URLs and classifying internal/external links), but it does not disclose important execution behaviors like rendering modes, credit costs, or dynamic-content handling that the render parameter implies.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and resource. Every phrase adds information: extraction, scope, anchor text, classification, and URL normalization.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, and the description only partially covers return concepts (anchor text, classification, normalized URLs). It omits any explanation of rendering behavior, credit implications, or when to choose this over similar sibling tools, leaving significant context to the schema and user inference.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'normalized URLs' loosely aligns with the mode parameter, but it does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond what the schema already documents for each parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Extract'), a clear resource ('all links from a webpage'), and key output enrichments (anchor text, internal/external classification, normalized URLs). This clearly differentiates the tool from sibling tools like tooltrace_metadata or tooltrace_tech_stack, even without seeing their descriptions.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tooltrace_extract or tooltrace_sitemap. There is no mention of use cases, limitations, or conditions that would make this tool preferable.

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