find_orphan_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does describe the tool's core behavior (scanning for notes without links) and the environment requirement, but it does not disclose side effects, return format, pagination, or performance implications. This is moderate transparency but leaves some gaps.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence adds a necessary environmental precondition. No redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., note paths, names, counts). While the env var prerequisite and core behavior are mentioned, the lack of return format reduces completeness. The 0 required params make invocation easy, but the output is unspecified.

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 schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (vaultId and includeBacklinks), so coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, only reiterating the 'targeted vault' concept. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema handles parameter semantics.

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 finds 'notes with no incoming or outgoing links', which is a specific verb and resource. This differentiates it from siblings like get_note_connections or find_similar_notes, which focus on connections or similarity.

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 mentions an explicit prerequisite (OBSIDIAN_VAULT_PATH must be set), which is helpful context. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_note_connections or detect_note_clusters, nor does it mention exclusions or specific use cases.

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