find_broken_links_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes what the tool does (finds broken links) and the scope, but lacks details on behavioral traits like performance implications, error handling, or output format beyond 'All broken links found'. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation or has side effects, though 'find' implies read-only.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, when to use, when not to use, returns) and uses bullet points for readability. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description does a good job covering purpose, usage guidelines, and high-level parameter semantics. However, it lacks details on the output format (beyond 'All broken links found') and doesn't address potential behavioral aspects like performance or errors, leaving some gaps for a tool with 3 parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the scope parameters ('vault, a specific directory, or a single note'), which aligns with the 'directory' and 'single_note' parameters. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the 'ctx' parameter or provide detailed examples of parameter usage beyond the high-level scope description.

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's purpose with specific verb ('find') and resource ('broken links'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning alternatives like get_outgoing_links and get_backlinks. It explicitly defines the scope ('in the vault, a specific directory, or a single note'), making it highly specific.

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 includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections with concrete scenarios (e.g., 'After renaming or deleting notes', 'Regular vault maintenance') and named alternatives (get_outgoing_links, get_backlinks). This provides comprehensive guidance on when to select this tool versus others.

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