audit_internal_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It provides zero information about whether the operation is read-only, what actions are performed, whether it modifies anything, or what the output looks like. The description is utterly uninformative.

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?

While the description is brief, it is under-specified rather than concise. A single sentence that merely repeats the tool name does not provide enough substance for an agent to understand purpose, usage, or parameters. It earns a low score due to insufficiency, not effective brevity.

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?

Given the tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should compensate with at least a basic explanation of what an internal link audit entails, what the parameters control, and what results to expect. The description provides none of this, making it completely inadequate for a 2-parameter tool.

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 mentions nothing about the two parameters (taskId, pathname). The agent gets no meaning beyond the raw schema, so the description fails to compensate for the complete 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 'Audit internal links' is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name 'audit_internal_links'. It states a clear verb and resource but adds no detail or distinction from sibling audit tools like audit_metadata or audit_page_seo, making it effectively a tautology.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternative tools, so the agent receives no decision support.

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