find_broken_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description covers the essential behavioral traits: it states internal links are validated against the indexed corpus and heading anchors, while external URLs are merely counted unless check_external is enabled. This gives the agent a good mental model of what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly mention side effects (e.g., read-only), but a link-checking tool is naturally non-destructive.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the tool's primary purpose, and the second explains the crucial external-link behavior. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded.

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 tool with a single optional parameter and an output schema, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly. It explains how internal and external links are handled and the role of the flag. Minor gaps remain (e.g., what 'counted' means exactly, or how external checks are performed), but these do not block 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning of 'check_external'. It does exactly that: 'External URLs are counted but skipped unless check_external is true.' This clarifies that setting the flag to true switches external URL handling from skip to active checking, adding the needed semantics beyond the bare parameter name.

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 action ('find broken links') and the specific target ('local Iggy documentation checkout'). It also distinguishes internal links (checked against corpus and anchors) from external links (skipped by default), which sets it apart from sibling tools like list_docs or search_docs.

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 explains the default behavior for external links and the condition under which they are checked ('unless check_external is true'), giving the agent clear context for when to set that parameter. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the scope is narrowly defined enough for this tool.

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