internal_link_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds valuable behavioral details: BFS algorithm, same-host constraint, hard caps (max_depth ≤4, max_pages ≤200), and exact outputs. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences packed with essential information: algorithm, scope, outputs, constraints, and usage caveat. No unnecessary words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (per-page metrics, orphans, broken links, depth distribution) and its constraints (max depth, max pages). Sufficient for an agent to understand behavior and expectations.

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 parameters are well-documented. Description repeats the hard caps but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it performs a small BFS crawl within the same host and returns specific link metrics (in-degree, out-degree, orphans, broken links, depth distribution). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like GSC, GA4, or SEO audit tools.

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?

Explicitly states 'Not a replacement for a full crawler; sized for in-session triage,' providing clear context for appropriate use. Does not name alternative tools, but the sibling set is diverse enough that this guidance is sufficient.

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