find_broken_links

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 transparency. It mentions 'rebuildable link index' but does not disclose side effects, read-only behavior, potential staleness of the index, error conditions, or performance characteristics. The behavioral trait described ('is_resolved=false') is more of a definition than a disclosure of tool behavior.

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 two concise sentences with no filler or irrelevant detail. It is well-structured and front-loads the primary purpose before adding a technical clarification about the link index.

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 simplicity, the presence of a schema describing both parameters, and the existence of an output schema (which removes the need to describe return values), the description is largely complete. Minor context about the 'rebuildable link index' could be expanded, but it does not prevent correct usage.

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% for both parameters, with clear descriptions in the schema ('limit' as maximum returned notes, 'folder' as optional folder filter). The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('links that point to missing notes'), distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like get_outlinks, find_orphan_notes, and link_stats. It is immediately obvious what the tool does.

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 purpose implicitly suggests when to use the tool (when you need broken links), but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state conditions for choosing it over similar tools like find_orphan_notes or link_stats. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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