Extract and check links

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior: splitting links into internal/external, counting nofollow, and optional HEAD-checks. However, it omits details like return format, pagination, or any rate limits or error behavior, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and then adds the optional check behavior. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 relatively simple, and the description covers its main behavior, but it lacks details about output format, the meaning of checkLimit, and any caveats around HEAD-checks. Given no output schema and no annotations, these gaps make the description adequate but not fully 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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to checkBroken via 'Optionally HEAD-checks internal links,' but checkLimit is left unexplained in both schema and description. The url parameter is self-evident, but the incomplete coverage for checkLimit prevents a higher score.

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: 'List a page's links split into internal and external with nofollow counts.' This is a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from siblings like audit_page, extract_schema, check_robots, and parse_sitemap, which focus on other aspects.

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?

It clearly communicates that it can optionally HEAD-check internal links to find broken ones, giving a concrete use case. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks full exclusions.

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