fetch_page_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list of links but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it performs web scraping (implying network calls and potential rate limits), error handling (e.g., for invalid URLs), or output format details. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details in a labeled 'Args' section. It avoids unnecessary words, though the formatting could be slightly more polished (e.g., bullet points). Every sentence adds value, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (web scraping for links), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but lacks details on behavioral traits like network dependencies or error scenarios. The output schema reduces the need for return value explanation, but more context would improve completeness.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'url' by specifying 'The URL to fetch links from,' which clarifies its role beyond the schema's basic title 'Url.' Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail URL format requirements or validation rules. With only one parameter, the baseline is high.

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's purpose: 'Return a list of all links on the page.' It specifies the verb ('Return') and resource ('list of all links'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fetch_url_text' (which might fetch text content rather than links), leaving room for minor ambiguity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools such as 'fetch_url_text' or 'brave_search_and_fetch', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for selection. This lack of comparative context limits its utility in guiding the agent.

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