get_orphan_sections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('list sections'), notes the version requirement (v1.39+), and explains the include_same_doc parameter's effect on inbound reference counting. It does not mention potential side effects or permissions, but for a read-only tool this is adequate.

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 long with no unnecessary information. The first sentence states the core functionality concisely, and the second adds contextual relationships to sibling tools. Every sentence 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?

Given no output schema and simple parameters, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and context. It mentions version, companions, and parameter nuance. It could mention output format or limitations (e.g., pagination), but overall it is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about version and companions but does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The schema descriptions for 'repo' and 'include_same_doc' are self-explanatory and not expanded in the tool description.

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 lists sections with zero inbound references, specifying the version requirement (v1.39+) and distinguishing it as a companion to get_broken_links and get_stale_pages. The phrase 'documentation that exists but nobody links to' adds intuitive clarity.

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 explicitly mentions companion tools (get_broken_links, get_stale_pages), providing context for when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, which would have merited a 5.

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