check_redirects

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already declaring safety and network access, the description adds real behavioral context: it reports every hop, final status, loops, temporary redirects, and https->http downgrades. That tells the agent what observations will come back and what pathological cases are detected. It does not describe rate limits, error handling, or result format, which keeps it below a 5.

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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence that packs the core purpose and expected findings without filler. The semicolon-separated list is dense but readable. Minor redundancy exists between "redirect chains" and the later "chains" item.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value meaning, and it does by enumerating hop tracing, final status, loops, temporary redirects, and https->http findings. It also covers both operating modes (urls and pairs). It stops short of explaining result structure or concurrency behavior, but for a read-only bulk checker it is largely 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?

Schema coverage is 67%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for urls ("in bulk") and pairs ("validates migration redirect maps"), clarifying that pairs verifies each old URL ends at its new URL. However, concurrency is completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a clear gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Trace redirect chains in bulk." It then enumerates the exact findings (every hop, final status, loops, temporary redirects, https->http) and the migration-map validation mode. This makes the tool clearly about bulk redirect tracing rather than HTTPS or DNS checking, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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?

"In bulk" implies this is the tool for many URLs rather than single-URL inspection, and "validates migration redirect maps" signals the pairs mode. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no named alternatives such as check_https or inspect_url, and no statement of prerequisites or limits beyond what the schema already provides.

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