web-scrape-links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: filtering out javascript:, mailto:, data: schemes, normalizing URLs, and optional restrictions. However, it omits details like error handling, JavaScript-rendered links, or robots.txt compliance.

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?

Three focused sentences: first states core function, second describes output, third lists options and use cases. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 no output schema and 5 parameters, the description covers essential behaviors and options. It could be improved with notes on error cases or handling of dynamic content, but is largely complete for most use cases.

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 100%, and the description adds value beyond schema by explaining normalization, default deduplication, and limit. This provides context that aids parameter selection.

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 all hyperlinks from any public webpage, specifies the output format (normalized absolute URLs with link text), and lists optional restrictions. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'page-links'.

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 explicit use cases (crawlers, sitemap builders, link graph analysis, content audits), giving context for when to use. It does not, however, directly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use.

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