find_orphan_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: e.g., whether it returns a list, paginates results, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word 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 the complexity of finding orphaned notes (which involves relational logic) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'orphan' means in this context (e.g., no links but possibly tags), the return format, or error handling. This leaves gaps for an agent to understand the tool fully.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter ('includeTagged') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining edge cases or examples. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 as 'Find notes that have no incoming or outgoing links,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_notes' or 'search_vault' by focusing on orphaned notes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'find_similar_notes' in terms of purpose, which slightly reduces 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after cleaning up a vault), or exclusions (e.g., not for general listing). With many sibling tools available, this lack of usage context leaves the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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