Component link health

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces that it is a 'Read-only diagnostic' and adds behavioral context: it probes live COMPs and reports missing/broken files. No contradictions.

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?

Two succinct sentences with front-loaded purpose and context. Every word adds value; no 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?

While the description explains the tool's purpose and when to use it, it omits explanation of parameters and does not describe the output format (e.g., what the 'report' looks like). Given no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, this is a gap.

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 0%, meaning the description does not explain the parameters 'paths' and 'parent_path'. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema, such as how to use these parameters or their defaults. Agent cannot infer correct usage.

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 probes live COMPs for externaltox paths and reports missing/broken linked component files. It is a read-only diagnostic, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'manage_component' or 'inspect_component_manifest' that may 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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'run it when externally-linked .tox components may have moved or gone stale, before relying on them in a build.' It does not mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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