get_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. It discloses the scope (indexed doc files), the link types checked and skipped, and the exact output format with reasons (file_not_found, section_not_found, anchor_not_found). This is comprehensive for a non-destructive scan 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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides detailed specifics and output format. Every sentence adds value, and it avoids unnecessary words.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains the return format (list of objects with fields and reasons). For a tool with one simple parameter and clear behavior, this provides complete context for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single required parameter 'repo', and its description ('Repository identifier (owner/repo or just repo name)') is present in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional context beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline.

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 it scans indexed doc files for broken internal cross-references, listing specific link types (markdown, RST directives, anchor-only) and explicitly noting that external links are skipped. This provides a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_section_delete_safe or get_doc_health.

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 the tool is for checking broken internal links, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives among the many sibling tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or situations where this tool should be avoided.

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