analyze_link_health_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions 'filesystem-native, offline' and provides performance estimates, giving insight into behavior. It does not explicitly state read-only but implies non-destructive analysis.

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 bullet points and clear sections. It is concise yet informative, front-loading the purpose and key details without unnecessary text.

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?

The description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, metrics, usage scenarios, and performance. Even without an output schema, it describes the return values sufficiently. It is complete for its complexity.

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 50%, and the description does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema provides. It adds no value for the 'ctx' parameter or usage details for vault_path.

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 what the tool does: 'Analyze vault-wide link health metrics (filesystem-native, offline).' It lists comprehensive metrics and distinguishes from siblings like find_broken_links_tool and find_orphaned_notes_tool.

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 'When to use:' section provides explicit scenarios for using the tool, such as vault health assessment and identifying maintenance needs. No exclusion or alternative guidance is given, but the context is clear.

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