get_link

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses default behavior (extract href without clicking) and the click mode (follows link, returns final URL). Also mentions timeout. Does not contradict any annotations.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. First sentence states main purpose, second explains default vs click, third lists use cases. Every sentence is informative and concise.

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?

No output schema, but description implies return of href and text. Covers both modes and all parameters. Lacks explicit detail on return format (e.g., structure of response), but adequate for agent understanding.

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%, so baseline 3. Description adds context for the click parameter (explains behavior difference) and timeout is already described in schema. No significant extra value beyond schema for url and selector.

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?

Description clearly states it gets link href and text from a web page, distinguishes between default extraction and click behavior, and lists specific use cases (extracting download links, checking redirect destinations, getting link text). This is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use (extracting links, checking redirects, getting link text) and the two modes (default vs click). However, lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like fetch_page or interact for alternative scenarios.

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