list_broken_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explains the tool lists and groups results by containing note, implying a read-only scan. Though it doesn't detail side effects or auth requirements, for a zero-parameter listing tool, the behavior is adequately disclosed.

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 consists of two concise sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and usage. Every word serves a purpose, with no superfluous content.

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 simple listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (broken links grouped by containing note) and its intended use. It is complete enough for an AI agent to select and invoke 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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info since none exist, matching the baseline expectation for zero-parameter tools.

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 lists all broken wikilinks ([[slug]] references to nonexistent notes), grouped by the containing note. This is a specific verb and resource, distinct from sibling tools like find_backlinks or find_orphans.

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 indicates it's a maintenance operation to be used periodically for cleaning the vault, providing clear usage context. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, the advice is sufficient.

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