extract_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does disclose meaningful behaviors: deduplication, absolute URL conversion, and the output link object structure. However, it omits any explanation of the `obey_robots` parameter, which could significantly affect behavior (e.g., respecting robots.txt), and provides no details on error handling or edge cases like pages with no links.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence core purpose followed by a compact parameter list and output format. Every line adds value with no redundancy, using a clear code block for parameters and return shape. It is front-loaded with the essential 'fetch and return links' message.

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 annotations or output schema, the description provides a solid overview of the tool's behavior and return format. It explains the main parameters and output object. The primary gap is the undocumented `obey_robots` parameter and lack of mention of potential errors or page fetch failures, preventing a perfect score.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain `same_domain` (same host), `pattern` (regular expression), and `limit` (1-2000), adding value beyond the schema. However, `obey_robots` is entirely absent, and `pattern` lacks specifics about regex flavor or matching rules. The description covers 3 of 5 parameters meaningfully but leaves key gaps.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool's function: 'Fetch a page and return its links (de-duplicated, absolute URLs).' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the output is clearly defined. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch_page (returns page content) and extract (generic extraction) by focusing solely on link extraction with deduplication and URL normalization.

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 contexts through the parameter explanations (e.g., same_domain, pattern) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as extract_tables or get_sitemap. There are no 'use this when...' or 'for X use...' statements, leaving usage as inferred rather than explicit.

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