Links Extract

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive. The description adds useful context: it notes that Delx Agent Utilities are separate and may involve x402 pricing. This goes beyond annotations and warns agents of potential costs, which is valuable for behavior understanding.

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 with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds important contextual information. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, earning a high score.

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 that there is no output schema, the description could better explain what the returned data looks like (e.g., a list of links). It does not mention failure modes, authentication, or redirect handling. It is adequate but incomplete for a tool with moderate complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for url, limit, and timeout. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 maps internal and external links for crawling, routing, and site inspection. The verb 'Map' combined with 'links on a page' specifies the resource and action. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling utilities like util_page_extract, but the focus on links is sufficiently distinct.

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 implies usage scenarios (crawling, routing, site inspection) but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, so the agent must infer context from the sibling tool list.

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