aadc.audit_link_reachability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It states it is 'warn-only,' implying no destructive action, but lacks details on network access requirements, error handling for unreachable links, or what constitutes a warning. Missing context on how 'Standards 4, 6' affect behavior.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the key behavior ('Warn-only check'). However, the mention of 'Standards 4, 6' may be unclear without expanding on what those standards entail. No unnecessary words.

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 low complexity (2 optional parameters, no required params) and presence of sibling audit tools, the description provides the core purpose but lacks details about the output format and how results are returned. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return value (e.g., list of dead 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 adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. The schema itself describes projectRoot and allowlists adequately.

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 performs a 'warn-only check' for 'external links referenced in content are reachable and not dead.' It references 'Standards 4, 6,' which provides additional context but is somewhat cryptic. The purpose is distinct from sibling audit tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other audit tools like aadc.audit_all or aadc.audit_hardcoded_url. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or alternatives. The 'warn-only' hint is the only usage insight.

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