find_orphans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation and no modifications, and the meaning of orphans is explained. However, it does not disclose possible scope limits, how the output is shaped, or whether the graph traversal includes only internal links.

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?

A single, compact, front-loaded sentence communicates the resource and the filtering condition with no filler, while also defining the domain term 'orphans'.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool, the description is nearly sufficient: it states what is returned and why. It could be slightly more useful if it mentioned the exact output fields, such as page IDs or titles, but the current wording remains adequate.

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 and the schema documents 100% of them. The description itself defines the core semantic concept, orphans, which compensates for the absence of parameters.

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 'List' with resource 'wiki pages' and clarifies the exact filter condition: 'no incoming links (orphans)'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like read_wiki_page, list_recent, and find_related.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you want wiki pages that have no incoming links. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the orphan condition itself is the usage trigger and no sibling offers the same purpose.

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