extract_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'opens the URL', returns unique hrefs with link text, produces a markdown list, and offers same-origin restriction. These details convey the key behavioral traits without revealing any hidden side effects, though it doesn't mention potential failures or authentication needs, which is acceptable for a public-page tool.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the primary use case, and each sentence earns its place. It covers the main action, the return format, and an optional parameter without any 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?

For a simple extraction tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the core behavior, the output format, and the optional filtering. The limit parameter is not mentioned, but it's fully covered by the schema, so no critical information is missing. The lack of negative guidance on siblings is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by mentioning 'same origin' which maps to the same_origin parameter, and 'unique hrefs' which relates to the limit/deduplication behavior, but it doesn't introduce additional semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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: extracting outbound links from a public page. It specifies the verb ('extract'), the resource ('outbound links from a public page'), and the outcome ('returns unique hrefs with link text'). This distinguishes it from siblings like browse_page and search_page, which serve different purposes.

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 opening phrase 'Use this when you need outbound links from a public page' provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative siblings for comparison, leaving the exclusion logic implicit.

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