links

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. 'Absolute' usefully signals that relative hrefs are resolved (or excluded) and 'current page' scopes it to the loaded document, but it never states whether hidden/duplicate links are included, whether order matches DOM order, or whether it triggers a navigation/fetch. The output schema covers the return shape, which lowers the burden.

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?

A single compact sentence with the key qualifier ('absolute') front-loaded and zero filler. It is a sentence fragment rather than a complete statement, which is the only structural weakness.

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 zero-parameter extractor with a full output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and its scope. The only meaningful gap is relative-link handling and ordering, which an agent would likely want before relying on the output.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description does correctly frame the implicit input as the currently loaded page.

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?

Names the resource precisely ('absolute hyperlink URLs on the current page'), which lets an agent distinguish it from read_html/read_text (full document content) or evaluate (arbitrary JS). It stops short of an explicit verb like 'List/Extract', so it reads as a noun phrase, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this over read_html, read_text, or evaluate — all siblings that could also surface link data. The agent must infer that this is the lightweight link-only extraction path.

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