broken_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose one behavioral trait beyond the schema: results are grouped by source note, which tells the agent the return shape. However, it says nothing about the index dependency (index_now exists as a sibling, implying staleness is possible) or the read-only/rate-limit profile.

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?

A single dense sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the defining characteristic (links that resolve to nothing) and the grouping in one clause.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the grouping is stated. Still missing for a link-integrity tool are the index-freshness caveat and the semantics/scope of limit, leaving an agent to guess about result truncation.

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 0% and the description never mentions the sole parameter. It is unclear whether limit caps broken links, source notes, or groups, nor what the default 200 means in context — the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a specific resource and scope: wiki-links that fail to resolve, resolved by stem or title. It is a noun phrase with no verb, but the intent (find broken links) is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the broader backlinks and graph_overview siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource itself — an agent looking for dangling wiki-links would pick this up — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites such as a fresh index, and no comparison against the overlapping backlinks tool.

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