obsidian_orphans

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'notes with no backlinks' precisely states the selection criterion and implies a read-only operation. It doesn't discuss edge cases (e.g., what counts as a backlink) or return format, but for a zero-parameter finder this is acceptable and transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Find notes with no backlinks (orphan notes).' Every word earns its place, and the parenthetical adds value by using a well-known term. No redundancy or filler.

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 such a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states the functional outcome. It could optionally describe the return value (e.g., 'returns a list of note paths'), but the purpose is so unambiguous that this is a minor gap.

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 zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details. There is nothing further to explain.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('notes with no backlinks'), clearly identifying the tool's action and target. The parenthetical '(orphan notes)' adds a familiar synonym that distinguishes it from siblings like obsidian_backlinks and obsidian_unresolved.

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 implies the use case (find orphan notes) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. There is no reference to the many sibling tools, so the agent must infer the intended context from the name and purpose alone.

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