extract_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses resolution to absolute URLs and the return format (results with url, value, context; errors), plus the save_as alternative. However, it does not mention side effects like page fetching behavior, handling of redirects, or limitations related to js_render and mode, which are important for behavioral transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return format, then storage option. No redundant phrasing; every word serves a purpose.

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 covers the core functionality and return format, but lacks detail on optional parameters (mode, js_render) and potential failure modes. Given the tool's complexity and existing output schema, it is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains save_as and implies urls, but leaves mode and js_render undefined. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions.

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 collects every hyperlink from a list of URLs and resolves them to absolute URLs. This specific verb+resource scope distinguishes it from siblings like extract_social_links and extract_emails, which target different data types.

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 (provide URLs to extract hyperlinks) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives. It only notes the save_as option for storing results, leaving the decision of extraction type to the agent.

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