spider_ai_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the AI subscription requirement but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or behavioral traits. The brief description offers limited transparency beyond the core capability.

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?

Two concise sentences deliver the purpose and a key prerequisite (AI subscription). No wasted words; front-loaded with the core action.

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?

With 5 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description minimally explains the tool's behavior. The limit and return_format parameters are well-described in the schema, but the description does not elaborate on results or pagination. It is adequate but not rich.

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 baseline is 3. The tool description adds little beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'AI-powered' framing). However, the schema descriptions are clear, making this adequate.

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 extracts and filters links using AI, with a directive to 'describe which links you want.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'spider_links' by emphasizing AI-powered functionality.

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 cases by saying 'describe which links you want' and notes the requirement of an active AI subscription. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like 'spider_links' for non-AI extraction.

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