docs_check_broken_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the action (scans) and purpose (detect broken links), implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior, performance implications, or what the return value looks like. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, tightly worded sentence that conveys the scan scope and purpose without fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter and no output schema or annotations, so the description is the primary source of context. It covers what and where it scans, but does not mention the output format (e.g., report of broken links) or error conditions. Given the simplicity, it is sufficient for basic understanding but lacks return-value details that an agent might need.

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 schema covers the single parameter (targetDir) with a clear description ('Directory to scan (defaults to cwd)'), so the schema already documents it. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, resulting in the baseline score of 3.

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 ('scans'), a clear resource ('markdown files'), and a precise purpose ('detect broken internal links and dead file references'). It also scopes to file extensions (.md, .mdx), distinguishing it from siblings like docs_auto_fix_links (which fixes links) and docs_extract_code_snippets (which extracts code).

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 says what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention that docs_auto_fix_links is the follow-up for fixing found issues, nor does it state any prerequisites (e.g., requiring a valid project structure).

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