check_links

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It does reveal the core algorithm (collect page links, check HTTP statuses, report each with '[404] URL'), which adds useful behavioral context. Missing details such as how redirects are handled, which status codes count as broken dm n-bit, and whether the operation is read-only prevent a higher score.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes a concrete output format. There is no filler or redundancy, and it is well-structured for an agent reading it quickly. It could do more to mention the parameters, but as an efficient summary it is well-built.

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 present output schema covers return shape, but the description itself leaves unexplained the three non-required parameters and does not define the boundary of the tool's scope. An agent must guess what 'internal_only' or 'timeoout' mean in practice. For a 4-parameter tool with zero parameter descriptions and no usage guidance, the narrative is incomplete.

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 input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage and the description does not compensate. Only the 'url' parameter is implicitly covered by gathering 'page links'; timeout, max_links, and internal_only receive no explanation, despite names being partially self-explanatory. A few words on these defaults and effects would materially improve the definition.

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 identifies the purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Проверка битых ссылок' (checking broken links), then spells out the process and output format ('[404] URL'). The added 'Паттерн broken link checkers' helps distinguish the scope from siblings, though other explicit alternative names are not used.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not reference alternative tools such as extract_links, fetch_page, or crawl, nor does it explain conditions like internal_only or when link checking is preferable. The context is implied only by the type of task.

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