find_orphaned_notes_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses it is filesystem-native and offline, and includes performance estimates. However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor mention any permissions or side effects, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections for purpose, usage, performance, and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple tool with minimal parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality, use cases, and performance. However, it could be more precise about the return format (e.g., relative vs absolute paths) and whether subfolders are included.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description adds no parameter information. The 'ctx' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, and the description does not elaborate on how vault_path is used beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Clearly states 'Find orphaned notes with no connections', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like find_broken_links_tool and find_hub_notes_tool by targeting completely isolated notes.

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?

Lists specific use cases (vault cleanup, finding forgotten notes, etc.), providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use or explicitly name alternatives among the 60+ sibling tools.

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