extract_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions resolving links to absolute URLs and describes the return format (results and errors), which is useful. However, it does not mention safety (e.g., read-only), failure handling, or any side effects. Basic transparency exists but lacks depth.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action. The second sentence efficiently details the return structure. No redundant or unnecessary information is present, making it highly scannable and compact.

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 tool is simple (2 params, no nested objects) and has an output schema, which helps. The description covers the core function and return shape. However, it lacks explicit guidance on alternative tools and does not explain the js_render parameter, which leaves some gaps for a fully complete contextual picture.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'a list of URLs' which clarifies the primary parameter 'urls', but it completely ignores 'js_render', leaving its purpose and behavior unexplained. The description adds partial meaning but fails to cover both parameters.

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 the tool's function: 'Collect every hyperlink from a list of URLs, resolved to absolute URLs.' The verb 'collect' is specific and the resource 'hyperlinks' is well-defined. It distinguishes itself from sibling extraction tools like extract_emails or extract_social_links, which target specific link types, whereas this tool gathers all hyperlinks.

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: extract all hyperlinks from provided URLs. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as fetch_page or crawl_site, nor does it mention any exclusions. The guidance is inferred from the tool's purpose but not directly articulated.

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