vault_link_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool scans all markdown files or a specific folder and formats paths as markdown links, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only or that it makes no modifications, though 'finds' and 'audit' imply this. The description could be more explicit about potential performance implications or side effects.

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 three sentences: purpose, usage, and a crucial output-handling note. It is front-loaded with the core function, then gives practical guidance, and ends with an important formatting caveat. Every sentence earns its place 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 absence of an output schema, the description explains the output format (markdown links) and how to relay paths to other tools, which is critical for usability. It covers the scoping (all files or a folder) and the checks. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly stating the tool is read-only, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the limit, checks, and folder parameters. The description adds a brief example of fuzzy folder resolution ('e.g., 'MyApp'') but doesn't significantly extend parameter semantics beyond the schema. It mentions the default of all four checks but the schema already states that.

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 opens with 'Graph health report' and explicitly lists the four detection categories (orphan notes, broken wikilinks, weakly connected notes, ambiguous links), providing a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from siblings like vault_links by focusing on link quality auditing rather than just listing 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 states 'Use to audit link quality and find notes that need better connections,' giving clear context for when to use it. It also adds practical guidance about how to handle the output (preserving markdown links and passing only the bracket text to other vault tools), which further clarifies usage. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or directly contrast with sibling tools.

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