Find Broken Links

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, consistent with scanning. Description adds behavioral context: returns per-source report, total count, only truly unresolvable links reported, uses whole vault for resolution, and groups entries by source note.

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?

Four sentences, each essential. Front-loaded with purpose. No filler or redundancy. Efficiently provides all necessary context without excess.

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 without output schema, description explains return format (per-source report with broken link text, line numbers, total count). Covers scanning scope and resolution behavior. Contextually complete for a scan 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 covers 100% of parameters. Description adds meaning beyond schema: folder restricts scan but resolution uses whole vault; maxResults groups by source and summarizes remaining entries. This helps agent understand behavior beyond parameter limits.

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?

Description clearly states the tool scans for wikilinks whose target does not resolve, returns per-source report with broken link text and line numbers, and total count. It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_orphans or find_unused_attachments by focusing on dangling references after renaming/moving/deleting.

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?

Explicitly says to use after renaming, moving, or deleting notes to catch dangling references. Also clarifies that resolution uses whole vault even when scanning a single folder. No explicit when-not, but context is clear and helpful.

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