extract_links_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the main behavior (extracting links) and parameter effects, but lacks details on edge cases, error handling, or read-only guarantees. It is honest but not exhaustive.

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 and well-structured with an Args and Returns section. It is front-loaded with a clear first sentence and every line serves a purpose without redundancy.

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?

The description provides a clear return format and parameter purposes, covering most information an agent needs. It lacks mention of handling malformed HTML or missing base_url, but for a straightforward extraction tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 provides meaningful explanations for base_url and internal_only, but the html parameter is merely described as 'HTML content' adding minimal beyond the schema title. It is helpful but not comprehensive.

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 'Extracts all links from HTML content' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like extract_images_tool and extract_metadata_tool by focusing specifically on links.

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?

Usage is implied from the description and parameters, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives. The description does not explain which scenarios favor this tool over siblings like extract_structured_data_tool.

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