check_links

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like handling of redirects, timeouts, authentication, or rate limits. It only states that HTTP status codes are reported, leaving significant behavioral assumptions unspecified.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences, no redundant words, and a clear structure. Every element adds value.

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?

Given the tool involves network requests and link checking, the description lacks important context such as the need for public accessibility, potential for large response, or handling of broken links. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but operational completeness is lacking.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the meaning of the 'url' parameter as 'URL to check links on', which is helpful but minimal. A more detailed explanation of expected URL format or constraints would improve this 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 action ('check all links') and the resource ('a page'), and specifies the output ('report their HTTP status codes'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'check_password_strength' or 'check_ssl_certificate' which address different verification tasks.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool (e.g., for checking internal vs. external links, for pages with many links) or when to avoid it. No alternatives are mentioned despite a large list of sibling tools.

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