find_orphan_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool 'finds' notes, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not disclose potential caveats such as whether results are sorted, whether the index must be fresh, or whether orphan detection is based on full graph analysis vs. direct backlinks only. The behavior is generally clear but not exhaustive.

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 consists of two short sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence directly states the function, and the second clarifies the graph context. It is exceptionally concise while remaining informative.

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 read-only find tool, the description is adequate. It covers the essential behavior and the output schema exists (as indicated by context signals), so return values are not required. Minor details like sorting order or index freshness are not mentioned, but these are not critical for correct usage. Overall, it is complete for practical purposes.

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 schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters ('maximum returned notes' and 'optional folder filter'), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. There is no ambiguity in parameter intent.

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 purpose: finding notes with no backlinks. It additionally explains the concept in graph terms ('isolated from incoming graph edges'), which reinforces the meaning. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like find_bridge_notes or find_link_clusters, but the core function is 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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what the tool does, without mentioning prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when another tool might be more suitable. This leaves the agent without explicit decision support.

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