find_orphans

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the fundamental definition of orphan, but does not clarify what counts as a link (wiki vs markdown, self-links), whether certain notes are excluded (e.g., templates, daily notes), or what the return format is (list of IDs, paths, full note objects). This leaves substantial ambiguity for an agent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence: action first, definition in parentheses. Every word earns its place, and the definition is integrated clearly without 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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), so minimal description might suffice. However, without an output schema, the description does not hint at what the response contains (e.g., list of note paths or objects). This missing detail prevents a higher score, though the core function is fully conveyed.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no entries. The description adds semantic value by explaining what qualifies as an orphan note, which helps an agent interpret the result set. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 action ('Find all orphan notes') and immediately defines the key term ('notes with no incoming or outgoing links'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_broken_links or get_backlinks. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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: call this when you need to identify notes that are completely unlinked. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like find_broken_links or get_link_graph. For a zero-parameter tool, some context about expected use cases would help.

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