check_links

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing the check method (HEAD requests), concurrency (50 links), caching (5 minutes), and result grouping (by status codes). This adds significant behavioral context that the readOnlyHint annotation alone does not convey.

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, front-loaded with the key purpose, and provides efficient details in a second paragraph. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 has a single well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description fully covers the behavioral aspects (concurrency, caching, grouping) and does not need to explain return values. It is complete for effective tool usage.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the 'url' parameter clearly. The description adds only minor clarifications (e.g., URL format examples), which are helpful but not essential. Therefore, baseline 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 tool scans a page for broken links, specifying the actions (find 404s, redirects, timeouts, server errors) and resources (page). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'seo_audit' or 'lighthouse_audit'.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to choose check_links over accessibility_audit or seo_audit). It lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.

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