find_unlinked_mentions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects, though the name and context imply no destructive behavior.

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 sentences: first defines the purpose, second specifies parameters and return structure. No unnecessary words, front-loaded.

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's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers purpose, input, and return fields but leaves ambiguity about whether the search is within a single note or across the vault, and does not clarify the scope of 'path'.

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?

The input schema is 100% covered but lacks a description for 'path'. The description only says 'Pass { path }' without explaining what the path should refer to (e.g., absolute path, relative path, note name), adding no value beyond the schema.

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 states the specific verb 'finds' and resource 'plain-text occurrences of a note's title that are not wikilinked', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_bidirectional_mentions which handle linked mentions.

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 usage for detecting unlinked mentions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide prerequisites or exclusions.

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