get_orphan_sections

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds critical behavioral detail: inbound links are counted only across indexed docs, so external links do not rescue a section. It also notes that include_same_doc defaults to false, affecting the count. This goes beyond the simple read-only flag and informs the agent of edge-case behavior.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and provides all necessary context without any filler. Each clause adds value, covering version, definition, sibling relationships, and counting scope.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description fully covers the purpose, behavior, and scope. It addresses edge cases (external links, intra-doc links) and clearly states the counting logic, making it complete for an agent to use 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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, providing clear descriptions of 'repo' and 'include_same_doc'. The tool description does not add much parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already offers, only reiterating the default behavior of include_same_doc in context. The baseline of 3 applies, as the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb ('list') and a precise resource: sections with zero inbound references from other docs. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools (get_broken_links, get_stale_pages) by defining exactly what it returns, ensuring the agent understands its unique role.

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 context on when to use this tool by framing it as a companion to get_broken_links and get_stale_pages, and clarifies that it finds documentation that exists but nobody links to. It also explains the counting scope (indexed docs only), though it does not explicitly state when not to use it beyond the sibling distinctions.

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