get_broken_links_fs_tool

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

With no annotations, the description partially covers behavior: scans markdown files, identifies wikilinks to non-existent notes, and gives performance timing. However, it misses details like error handling, limitations (e.g., only markdown), and whether it's 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?

Well-structured with sections for introduction, usage, performance, and returns. Efficiently conveys key information without unnecessary words, though the 'Returns' section could be omitted if output schema existed.

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?

Covers main purpose, use cases, and performance. Lacks details on output format (only says 'grouped by source note') and edge cases (e.g., handling of non-markdown files, errors). Adequate but could be more complete.

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 50% (only vault_path described). The description explains vault_path's default usage from env var but does not mention the ctx parameter, leaving it undocumented.

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 using filesystem access without requiring Obsidian, and distinguishes itself from sibling find_broken_links_tool by emphasizing 'no Obsidian required'.

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?

Provides a bullet list of when to use (after renaming/deleting notes, maintenance, etc.) and performance estimates, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to alternatives like find_broken_links_tool.

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