find_broken_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the basic function but does not disclose the return format, underlying behavior, performance characteristics, or limitations. For a simple read-only operation, the absence of side effects is not stated, and the user cannot infer what output to expect.

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 exactly two sentences, every word earning its place. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and gives a concise definition of the broken-link target, with no redundancy or extraneous detail.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but lacks any mention of return values or behavior for the optional folder parameter. While simple, it falls short of fully equipping an agent to know what to do with the results or how the optional parameter affects the search scope.

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 100% for the single optional 'folder' parameter, and the schema already explains its meaning. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('broken internal links in the vault'), further clarifying the target ('[[links]] that point to notes that don't exist'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_outgoing_links or find_orphan_notes.

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 implies a clear use case (finding broken internal links) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusion conditions. It lacks the explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool references seen in higher-scoring examples.

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