get_broken_links

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing the exact scope (internal cross-references), the specific syntaxes checked, the exclusion of external links, and the output shape with possible reason values. This gives the agent an accurate mental model of behavior without needing to inspect code.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. The second sentence packs in technical details (link types, external skip, output format) without fluff.

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?

For a read-only tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what to expect: input, processing scope, exclusions, output structure, and possible reasons. It is self-sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 has 100% coverage for the single 'repo' parameter, so the description need not repeat its meaning. The description does not add any extra semantics about parameter usage beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 the tool scans indexed doc files for internal cross-references that no longer resolve, with a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('indexed doc files'). It also details exactly which link types are checked (markdown, RST directives, anchor-only) and which are skipped (external), making it easily distinguishable from siblings like get_backlinks or get_orphan_sections.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to find broken internal links) and explicitly excludes external links, implying it is not for link validation of http/https URLs. However, it does not name alternative tools for such cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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