extract_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions persistent sessions and regex filtering, but does not explain side effects such as whether a tab is created or kept open, whether redirects are followed, whether results are deduplicated, or how timeout and max_results affect behavior. The claim 'all links' is also undercut by the max_results default, which is not acknowledged.

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 and front-loaded: the core action is stated first, followed by two short sentences that add useful capability context. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of parameter details already present in the schema.

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?

The schema documents all five parameters well, including defaults and the url/tab_id relationship, which covers much of what an agent needs to invoke the tool. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves some behavioral questions unanswered, such as how persistent sessions are managed and what exactly is returned beyond 'links'.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's mention of regex filtering and tab_id mostly restates what the schema already documents in more detail, and it does not add meaningful semantic value 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 states a specific action ('Extract all links from a web page') and mentions additional capabilities like regex filtering and tab_id reuse. It is generally distinguishable from siblings like fetch_page or web_search, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similar-sounding crawl tool.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as crawl, fetch_readable, or fetch_structured_data. The intended use is implied by the name and purpose, but the description does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would route an agent to a sibling tool.

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