find_orphans

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool's behavior (listing orphans based on link criteria) but does not mention permissions, side effects, or whether it is read-only. Since the operation is inherently non-destructive, the lack of explicit disclosure is a minor gap.

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 extremely concise: two sentences in Spanish that front-load the purpose and immediately provide the definition and use case. No wasted words.

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 tool, the description is complete. It explains the tool's output (list of orphans) and its utility. The absence of an output schema does not detract from completeness, as the description gives sufficient context.

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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but this is unnecessary. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate per guidelines.

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 defines the tool's function: listing orphan notes (notes with no backlinks or outlinks). It specifies the resource and the filtering criteria, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_backlinks or list_broken_links.

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 a clear use case: auditing isolated notes that should be integrated or deleted. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives, though the context is sufficiently clear.

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