Find Orphans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds valuable context beyond them: self-links are ignored, exclude_folders is matched by prefix and recurses, empty results are a valid outcome, and results are sorted by most-recently-modified. This gives the agent an accurate behavioral model without contradiction.

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 well-organized and front-loaded: it opens with the core definition, then provides an example, usage guidance, parameter details, error semantics, and return shape. Every section earns its place, and bullet-style formatting makes the information easy to scan.

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 that there is no output schema, the description fully compensates by listing the returned fields, sorting behavior, and the empty-array meaning. It also covers edge cases (self-links, folder prefix recursion) and gives actionable follow-up guidance with vault_patch_note. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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?

Although the schema already describes both parameters, the description adds significant meaning: exclude_folders replaces rather than augments the defaults, includes the exact default list, explains prefix matching and recursion, and clarifies that limit caps after sorting. This goes well beyond the schema's short descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Find notes with no incoming links from other notes,' and further defines what counts as an orphan (self-links ignored). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings, especially vault_get_backlinks, by scoping to graph-wide orphan detection rather than single-note connectivity.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Vault maintenance — surfacing notes to integrate into the graph') and names the alternative for the one-note case ('Prefer vault_get_backlinks to check the connectivity of one specific note'). This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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