util_links_extract

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'Map internal and external links,' omitting details like whether the tool follows redirects, handles JavaScript, or what link types are included. No information on error handling or authentication needs.

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 14-word sentence, demonstrating conciseness. However, it sacrifices necessary detail—especially about input format—making it less effective. It could be expanded without becoming verbose.

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 freeform input schema, lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain input structure, return format, or constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 one parameter 'arguments' (freeform object with additionalProperties true, 0% coverage). The description adds no guidance on required properties (e.g., URL, page content). The agent cannot infer what to pass without external knowledge.

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 states 'Map internal and external links on a page for crawling, routing, and site inspection,' which clearly identifies the tool's action (mapping links) and resource (a page). It distinguishes from sibling tools like util_page_extract or util_url_health by specifying link extraction, but does not mention how the page is specified (e.g., URL), leaving some 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include many page inspection tools (e.g., util_page_extract, util_robots_inspect), but the description provides no context for when link extraction is appropriate or preferred.

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