extract_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'intelligent categorization' but does not explain specifics like deduplication, ordering, or compliance with robots.txt. More detail on behavioral traits would improve transparency.

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 concise with two sentences: the first covers purpose and output, the second provides use cases. No unnecessary words, efficiently front-loaded.

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?

While the description covers the tool's core functionality, it lacks details on error handling, output format, or behavior with large sets of links. Given the absence of an output schema, more completeness would aid agent understanding.

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 coverage is 50%, and the description adds some context about categorization and context but does not explicitly map to parameters like filter_options. The description provides general semantics but could better explain how parameters affect the intelligent categorization.

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 extracts all links from a webpage, with categorization and context, returning internal/external links, link text, and destination context. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like extract_article and extract_structured_data, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear use cases (competitive analysis, site mapping, link discovery) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives. However, the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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