js_xnlinkfinder

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this tool makes network requests, how it handles the target JavaScript, what output it returns, or any side effects. The one-liner reveals only the high-level purpose, not the 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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action verb and the target resource. However, it is too terse to cover essential guidance, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

For a reconnaissance tool with no annotations, no output schema, undocumented parameters, and multiple similar sibling tools, this description is severely incomplete. It lacks sufficient context for an agent to understand when to invoke it, what inputs to provide, or what results to expect.

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 0%, yet the description adds no parameter explanation. It does not clarify what 'url' should point to (e.g., a JS file URL vs. a page containing JS) or what 'additional_args' accepts. The agent must guess parameter semantics from the schema types alone.

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 'Discover links and parameters from JavaScript' uses a specific verb and states both the action and the resource. It is clear at a high level, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like js_paramspider or js_getjs, which likely perform similar JS analysis tasks.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many JS-related siblings (js_getjs, js_jsluice, js_paramspider, js_beautify). There are no prerequisites, context about the input, or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and brief description.

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