find_orphan_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core semantics and implies a read-only search, but it doesn't describe the return format, default scope, or any side effects. The 'find' verb suggests safety, but details are sparse.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main definition and then elaborating on the concept. Every word contributes meaning; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple with well-documented parameters, but there is no output schema and the description doesn't explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., a list of note names). This leaves a gap for the agent regarding expected output, so completeness is average.

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 coverage is 100%: both 'folder' and 'includeUnlinked' are described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so it aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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's function: finding orphan notes, defined as notes with no incoming links from other notes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_broken_links and get_backlinks by focusing on connectivity rather than broken links or backlink data.

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 provides a clear context: it identifies notes that are disconnected from the knowledge graph. This tells the agent when to use the tool, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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