browser_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: it never states that the operation is read-only, whether it waits for page load, whether links are deduplicated, or how it behaves when no tab_id is supplied. 'Return every anchor' implies a non-mutating read, but that is inference, not disclosure.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the return shape, with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is partly under-specification rather than disciplined brevity.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the agent guessing on tab targeting and the meaning of internal_only. The return format is the only thing adequately covered.

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% and the description adds nothing about either parameter. internal_only is particularly opaque and needs an explanation (same-origin only? excluding external links?) that appears nowhere, and tab_id's default-to-active-tab behavior is likewise unstated.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Return every anchor with href + text'), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near neighbors like browser_find, browser_query, browser_dom, or browser_html, which an agent could easily confuse for the same job.

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?

'Useful as a crawler primitive' gestures at a use case but names no condition for choosing this over browser_find, browser_query, or browser_html. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance.

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