check_broken_links

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states it extracts links and tests HTTP status codes, but does not disclose potential side effects like network requests, rate limits, timeouts, or concurrency behavior. More transparency is needed for a tool making external calls.

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?

Single, clear sentence with no extraneous words. Every part conveys essential information effectively.

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?

No output schema, so description should explain return format. It only describes the action, not what the tool returns (e.g., list of links with status codes). Also lacks information about scalability or side effects of performing HTTP requests, which is critical for an agent to assess risk.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the overall process (testing HTTP status codes to detect broken links), though it does not directly add new information about the parameters beyond what the schema provides. The combined effect is sufficient.

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?

Clearly states it extracts all links (a href tags) from HTML and tests HTTP status codes to detect broken internal or external URLs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_seo_metadata or validate_url, which have different purposes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the description implies it's for checking broken links, and sibling tools have different focuses, so the context is moderately clear. Lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements.

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