check_links

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

The description discloses that external links are skipped by default and that a broken-link summary is returned, but it does not mention potential performance impacts, redirect handling, or error states beyond 404s. With no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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 concise with three sentences covering purpose, behavior, and return. It is front-loaded with the core function. Slightly verbose first sentence could be trimmed without loss.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description partially covers return format (per-link results and summary). However, it lacks details on pagination, limits, error handling, and how results are structured. Additional context would improve completeness.

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 each parameter is documented. The tool description adds slight value by repeating the relationship between url and session_id, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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: crawling all links on a page and reporting status. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it checks links on a page, not just a single URL like test_url.

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 provides basic usage conditions (external links skipped unless check_external=true, works on session or URL) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like test_url or web_search.

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