yandex_get_broken_internal_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states 'Get broken internal link samples.' It does not disclose what 'samples' entails (e.g., count, format), whether it is read-only (implied but not explicit), or any side effects. Minimal behavioral insight.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could include more detail without harming conciseness. Essentially appropriate size for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple tool (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks context about what 'samples' means, how many are returned, and any limitations. The user needs more information to use the tool effectively.

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 100% for the single parameter, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the existing schema covers the parameter adequately.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves broken internal link samples, matching the explicit resource in the name. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like yandex_get_diagnostics, which may also involve broken links, but the focus on 'broken internal link samples' is specific enough.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like yandex_get_diagnostics or yandex_get_external_links. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, relying solely on the tool name for implied usage.

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