extract_social_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 does mention the return format (JSON with results and errors), implying partial failures. However, it does not explain the behavior of js_render, mention network interactions, or state side effects (though 'find' suggests read-only). It provides minimal but not rich 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second states the output format. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly efficient.

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 core function and output format are covered, and an output schema exists. However, the unexplained `js_render` parameter and the absence of any guidance on alternatives or behavioral nuances leave gaps. For a 2-parameter tool, it's adequate but not 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?

The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must explain the parameters. It only implicitly references 'list of URLs', which is redundant with the parameter name, and says nothing about the `js_render` boolean. This is a significant omission for a key parameter that affects behavior.

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 action ('Find social media profile links') and the resource ('across a list of URLs'), listing the specific platforms targeted. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_emails, extract_phones, and extract_links, making its purpose 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?

The purpose is so specific that when to use it is clear (when you need social media links from URLs). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., 'for non-social links, use extract_links'). The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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