find_unused_attachments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The core behavior (finding unreferenced attachments) is stated, but key traits like vault-wide reference scanning, the effect of the optional folder parameter, and return format are not disclosed in the description, only partially in the schema.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, followed by a brief, useful use-case statement. Every word earns its place.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose but leaves gaps: it does not clarify what counts as 'referenced,' whether the search is vault-wide (only implied in the schema), or what the tool returns. It is adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete.

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 100%, and the 'folder' parameter is well-documented in the schema with 'references are always searched vault-wide.' The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Find' with a clearly defined resource: 'attachments that are not referenced by any note.' This precise scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_attachments (all attachments) and find_orphans (unlinked notes), and adds the practical context of cleaning up unused files.

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?

'Useful for cleaning up unused files' gives clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it misses the top score for exclusions and alternatives.

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