spider_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait ('without fetching content') and performance ('Fast'), but lacks details on return format, authentication, or limits. The disclosure is partial but adds some value beyond the tool name.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a practical use case, every word contributes.

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the basic purpose but omits information about return format, limit behavior, or how it handles dynamic pages. The description is sufficient for a simple tool but lacks depth.

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 all four parameters (url, limit, request, return_format) are already documented. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 (extract links), the resource (a page), and the key differentiator ('without fetching content'). It distinguishes spider_links from sibling tools like spider_scrape or spider_crawl.

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 use for quick URL discovery ('Fast way to discover URLs on a site') but does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or suggest alternatives like spider_crawl or spider_search. Usage guidance is indirect rather than explicit.

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