wikilink_health

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces that without contradiction. It adds behavioral context beyond the annotation by specifying that it reports each dead target with its referencing lesson or skill, which is useful and not present in the structured data.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then a clarifying note about read-only behavior and the separation of repair. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with one optional boolean parameter, an output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the description covers the main behavior and output. The only missing detail is the effect of include_archived, but the parameter name and default largely self-explain. Overall, the essential context for calling it correctly is present.

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%, so the description bears full responsibility for parameter semantics. It does not mention include_archived at all, leaving the agent to infer the meaning from the parameter name and default. This is a clear gap given the low 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('unresolved [[slug]] links in all lesson and skill bodies'), clearly distinguishing it from repair actions. It states exactly what the tool reports and separates detection from remediation, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly frames the tool as a read-only detector and notes that repair is a separate curator action, implying when to use it. However, it does not name specific alternative tools for repair or other health checks, leaving some inference to the agent.

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