list_orphans

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains what an orphan is (registered but never used) and that results echo token locations, which is useful semantic context, but it never states that this is a side-effect-free read operation, nor does it mention permission, project-load, or cost/rate considerations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition, then rationale, use case, args, and returns. Every section is short and earns its place; the 'design system clutter' line is slightly editorial but still supports the usage guidance.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema already covering return structure, the description adds the needed conceptual and parameter context. Nothing critical is missing, though a note that it is a safe read operation would close the remaining gap left by absent annotations.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does by documenting the single parameter ('project_path: optional — explicit path to project root'), clarifying its role and optionality beyond the bare schema title.

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+resource (list orphan tokens) and defines the key term inline ('registered but never used'), which immediately distinguishes it from the generic list_tokens sibling without the agent opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear motivating context ('identify tokens that can be safely removed or that need to be used in the codebase'), telling the agent when this tool is useful. It does not, however, name alternatives such as list_tokens or state any exclusion conditions, so it stops short of the explicit when/when-not routing a 5 requires.

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