check_vault_integrity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns missing targets ranked by 'how many DISTINCT notes reference each missing target,' which is a behavioral trait beyond what the parameter schema provides. It also gives interpretive guidance (e.g., 'one note pointing at an unwritten note is an ordinary forward reference'), which helps set expectations. However, it doesn't disclose the return format or pagination, so I deduct a point for missing that behavioral detail.

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 a single, dense paragraph but is packed with information: purpose, context, ranking logic, and usage timing. It's not overly verbose, but it could be broken into shorter sentences for readability. Still, every sentence earns its place; no fluff. Content-wise it's efficient, but structure could improve.

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 tool's complexity (a vault integrity check with ranking), the description is fairly complete. It explains the why (git's limitation), the how (ranking by references), and when (session start). With no output schema, it doesn't describe return structure, but the ranking logic is enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose. A slightly missing piece is the exact output format, but the description provides adequate context for confident use.

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%, and the parameter min_references is described in the schema ('How many distinct referencing notes before a missing target counts as load-bearing. Default 3.'). The description adds context about the significance of the parameter by explaining the ranking concept, which goes beyond the schema. The baseline is 3, and the description's added context on the parameter's meaning justifies a 4.

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: 'Find wikilinks that point at notes which do not exist.' It specifies the resource (wikilinks) and the action (find broken links), and the verb 'Find' is specific. It distinguishes from siblings like resolve_link and get_backlinks by focusing on integration with the vault, not just structure.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'Run at session start alongside check_search_health.' It also provides context on why it matters (git's limitations) and what the ranking means, helping distinguish from other tools like search_notes. It clearly suggests a usage pattern, though it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but the session-start guidance is strong.

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