util_broken_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does useful disclosure: it tests both internal and external links and reports broken vs redirected status categories. However, it does not mention network behavior, rate limits, the cap on links tested, or whether external checks can be disabled, lening the behavioral picture incomplete.

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?

Two tight, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The core purpose appears first, and the second sentence adds exactly the status-code detail that makes the tool useful.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify what the caller gets back and how the settings affect behavior. It does not state return shape, handling of maxLinks/timeout, or what happens when external checking is disabled, leaving an agent to guess.

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 only 25%, and the description does not compensate. Only the 'internal/external' phrase faintly reflects checkExternal; timeout and maxLinks receive no semantic explanation in either the schema or 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?

States a specific verb ('check') and resource ('broken links on a page'), then elaborates with concrete behavior: tests internal and external links, classifies 4xx/5xx as broken and 3xx as redirected. This is enough to set it apart from broader tools like monitor_check_uptime or seo_sitemap_analyze.

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 when to use it: whenever you want a page-level link health audit. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, so it stops at implied usage rather than true routing.

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