extract_links

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

The tool has no annotations, and the description says only that it 'collects' links. It does not state whether it dereferences URLs directly, whether it only returns raw HTML, what filtering does at the structure level, or any network side effects. The description is under-specified for safe and low-level behavior on a network; the tool can drag the agent.

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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with the action, directly follows the resource and parameters. No redundancy or filler.

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 accepts 3 parameters and 1 required; the output schema is present, which helps, but descriptions give no return format or handling. The description is still weak: it fails to note the probable return of a list of URLs, does not cover relative/oblique links, handling of exceptions, or behavior with 'max_links' and limitations. Among sibling drivers, extraction lacks explicit conditions, so the context 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 schema has 0% coverage and no enum values. The description names the url parameter and muddles through the pattern as substring filtering, but it leaves max_links undocumented and gives no format for the pattern or maximum-links semantics. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured schema data to make a parameter viable.

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 'Collects page links (filter by substring pattern)' clearly identifies a link-extraction verb and resource, and the required 'url' parameter indicates the target page. However, it does not contrast this with sibling tools like web_search or fetch, so some ambiguity about when to choose this over those remains.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tools are mentioned. The filtering behavior is implied but not formalized, leaving it to the agent to infer when link-extraction is preferable to a search, fetch, or browser navigation.

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