slipbox_find_orphaned_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of conveying behavioral traits. 'Find' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds context about why orphaned notes matter and what to do with them. However, it does not explicitly state safety (e.g., no modifications) or output format, leaving some ambiguity for a zero-parameter tool.

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 sentences, tightly written with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds valuable context and guidance. Every sentence earns its place, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It states what it finds, why it matters, and when to use it. No further details are necessary for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 covers everything. According to the baseline rule for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter info (correctly, as there are none).

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 with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('notes with no connections to other notes'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_similar_notes and find_central_notes by defining 'orphaned' explicitly, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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 clear usage context ('Review these periodically') and suggests follow-up actions (link or delete). However, it does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it falls short of the highest bar which requires explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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