get_orphan_sections

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral details beyond the basic scanning operation (no performance, side effects, or auth requirements). With annotations shouldering the burden, the description adds marginal value.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with version and action, followed by companion context. Every sentence is informative and 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?

For a simple list tool with two parameters and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose and companion tools. However, without an output schema, it does not hint at the return format or what a section looks like (path, ID, title). This gap makes it less than fully complete.

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%, so the input parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning or usage details for the parameters (e.g., how 'include_same_doc' affects results). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'list sections' and clearly defines the condition 'zero inbound references from any other doc'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing itself as a companion to get_broken_links and get_stale_pages, making its purpose unique.

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?

Mentions version requirement 'v1.39+' and frames the tool as a companion to get_broken_links and get_stale_pages, giving context on when to use it ('documentation that exists but nobody links to'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond these two.

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