memory_link_check

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

The description states 'Read-only' which matches the readOnlyHint=true annotation. It discloses the types of results (unresolved and dangling_edges), the resolution method by title, and the effect of scope/namespace sweeping. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds essential detail. No wasted 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool reports (two types of broken links) and how to use it with single or batch modes. It covers all necessary context for correct invocation.

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 usage context: 'Pass an id to check one memory, or scope/namespace to sweep a partition' and the title resolution rule, which is not in the schema.

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 it finds broken [[wikilinks]] and specifies two detailed types (unresolved, dangling_edges). It explicitly distinguishes itself from memory_unlinked_mentions as the 'inverse', making the purpose unambiguous.

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: 'Find BROKEN [[wikilinks]]' and gives two usage patterns (by id or by scope/namespace). It also mentions the alternative 'memory_unlinked_mentions' for the inverse case, offering clear guidance on when not to use this tool.

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