net_dead_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the core steps (crawl, extract, check HTTP status) and the default limit of 20 checks, which is useful. However, it does not disclose the output format, how dead links are determined (e.g., what status codes are considered dead), or error-handling behavior. More transparency would be expected for a network analysis 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 a single concise sentence in the format 'category: action details'. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and includes the most critical default behavior without unnecessary words. Every element earns its place.

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?

This is a multi-step tool (crawl, extract, check) with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage. The description does not state what the tool returns (e.g., a list of dead links with status codes), how many results are returned, or what constitutes a dead link. For a task of this complexity, the description is incomplete and leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior and result format.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'limit' parameter indirectly through '默认最多检查 20 个' (default max 20), adding meaning beyond the schema's default value. However, it does not explicitly name the 'url' parameter or its expected format, though '抓取页面' implies it. The description adds some value but does not fully cover both parameters.

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: it detects dead links on a website by crawling a page, extracting links, and checking their HTTP status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like net_url_status (which checks a single URL) or net_fetch (which fetches content). The verb '检测' (detect) and resource '网站死链' (website dead links) are specific.

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 the use case (finding dead links on a page) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like net_url_status or net_fetch. It lacks clear 'when-not-to-use' guidance or mention of alternative tools. The context is clear enough for basic selection, but not robustly differentiated.

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