find_broken_links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific scan scope (wikilinks to nonexistent notes) but does not disclose behavior like folder filtering, result limits, or performance characteristics that would go beyond annotations.

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?

A single clear sentence that communicates the core function without extra words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

The description is adequate for a default invocation with no arguments, but with no output schema it does not explain the return format, and it does not clarify the semantics of the folder parameter or the max_results limit. Given the tool's simplicity, the gaps are notable but not severe.

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 tool description does not mention either parameter. The agent only has parameter names and defaults (folder=null, max_results=200) to infer meaning from, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 resource ('wikilinks pointing at notes that don't exist'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_outlinks (links from a note) and find_orphans (notes without backlinks). The intent is unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for discovering broken wikilinks, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives such as get_outlinks or find_orphans, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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