Проверка ссылок

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (read-only, open-world, idempotent), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: per-link timeout semantics, bounded worker pool via CAMOUFOX_LINK_WORKERS (default 8, cap 16), forced sequential execution under live-browser mode, and the 900s call budget with client-timeout advice.

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?

Front-loaded WHEN/WHAT/NOT structure makes it scannable, and the concurrency caveat plus timeout budget genuinely earn their space. It is dense with operational detail, but none of it is padding given the described pitfalls.

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?

With an output schema present, return format need not be restated, and the description covers the runtime constraints, failure mode, and budget that an agent needs to invoke this correctly. Nothing material is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it explains the two non-obvious params: timeout is per-link (15s), not total, and internal_only controls whether external links are checked. max_links is only implied via the 50-link/min figure, so it is slightly short of complete.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: find broken links on a page and report HTTP statuses as «[404] URL». That clearly distinguishes it from extract_links (which only gathers URLs) without needing to name the sibling explicitly.

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?

Explicit WHEN (before publishing or after a redesign) and explicit NOT (don't expect parallelism when a live browser is up; external links require internal_only=False). The conditions that select behavior are spelled out, including the observed failure mode.

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