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. It adds the clarifying definition of broken links, which is a behavioral trait beyond the name. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, return format, or scope, though these are largely inferable for a simple query tool.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Find all broken links' followed by a concise parenthetical definition. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), this description is sufficient for an agent to understand its purpose and select it appropriately. It might benefit from stating that it scans the active vault, but the current level is adequate for a simple finder.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. Baseline is 4 for 0-parameter tools, and the description correctly omits parameter details. No further elucidation is needed.

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 links'), and the parenthetical defines the exact criterion: 'links pointing to non-existent notes'. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_outlinks (all links) and find_orphans (unlinked 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 when to use the tool (when you want to identify links to missing notes) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It doesn't mention when not to use it or how it relates to similar tools like get_outlinks.

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