find_orphans

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

The description explains the logic (zero incoming and outgoing links) but does not explicitly state it is read-only or mention any side effects. With no annotations, the agent can infer safety from context, but a direct statement would improve 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 concise, with a clear first paragraph for purpose and a second for parameters. No unnecessary words, well-structured.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, and parameters adequately. Since an output schema exists, return values are documented elsewhere. The tool is simple, and the description is complete for the given 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 description includes an Args section that explains both parameters: folder as a vault-relative prefix and limit with default and hard cap. This compensates fully for the 0% schema coverage, adding complete meaning.

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 it finds notes with zero incoming and zero outgoing resolved links, specifying a verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_related or get_links by focusing on disconnected notes for vault hygiene.

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?

It mentions usefulness for vault hygiene and cleanup decisions, providing context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like find_related.

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