check_readme_links

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

With no annotations, the description is the only behavioral disclosure. It states the checking action and local-only scope, but does not say whether the tool returns a pass/fail, a list of broken links, or a score, nor whether it has side effects. The ambiguous 'Scores' further obscures the actual 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 very short and front-loaded, with the primary action in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a scope limitation, though 'Scores' is awkward and slightly redundant.

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?

For a simple tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves key context missing: what the result looks like, how broken links are reported, and whether the file is modified. An agent can invoke it but cannot predict its output.

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%: filePath is described as 'Path to README.md.' The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence clearly identifies the action: checking that relative links in a README resolve on disk, which is a specific verb+resource and distinct from the sibling tools' overall scoring or suggestions. The second sentence is slightly ambiguous ('Scores' could be a typo for 'Scans'), but the core purpose remains understandable.

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 is given on when to choose this tool over score_readme or suggest_improvements. The only contextual hint is the local-file restriction, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name.

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