verify_markdown_links

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'verify' without stating side effects, whether it is read-only, or what actions are taken (e.g., reporting broken links). The term 'local' hints at network independence, but key behavioral details like error handling or return semantics are absent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds meaning, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description lacks necessary context about default behavior (what happens with no patterns), what constitutes a valid target or anchor, and the precise nature of the verification. These gaps are significant given the tool's potential complexity and the absence of annotations.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only vaguely references 'root-relative globs,' which likely corresponds to the patterns parameter, but it does not explain the repository_root parameter or the meaning of patterns being null. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb (verify), a clear resource (local Markdown targets and anchors), and a scoping mechanism (simple root-relative globs), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_yaml. It is not a tautology or vague; it directly explains the tool's function.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. While the sibling list includes verify_yaml, the description never mentions it or offers a comparison, leaving the usage context entirely implicit.

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