Detect Divergence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does declare read-only behavior and that nothing is deleted automatically, which is valuable safety context for a detect/audit tool, though it doesn't mention performance, vault scope behavior, or that an output schema exists.

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?

Two tight clauses front-loading the detection target and immediately following with the safety profile. Zero waste, well structured.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the safety profile is covered. The main gap is the vault parameter's semantics, which is left entirely unexplained given 0% schema coverage. Given the diagnostic nature and output schema presence, the description is largely complete but has that one hole.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and there is one parameter (vault, optional, nullable). The description doesn't explain what the vault parameter means or its default behavior (scoping to a single vault vs all). The baseline for 0-param is 4, but here there is one undocumented param that the description fails to compensate for.

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?

States a specific verb (Find) and clear resource (nodes/notes pointing at paths that no longer exist, plus dangling edges), which is concrete and distinguishable from siblings like reindex_paths or sync_note_links. It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with.

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?

Usage is implied by the diagnostic nature of the operation -- you'd use it to audit for broken references before reindexing or cleaning up. However, there is no explicit 'when to use this vs reindex_paths/sync_note_links' guidance or prerequisite statement, so the agent must infer the workflow context.

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