Orphan notes

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the non-obvious behavioral fact of a hard 500-result cap on top of the default limit, which an agent needs when sizing queries.

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 qualifying condition is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args block. The Args block is docstring-style but earns its place because the schema documents nothing; no filler sentences.

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 a two-optional-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers definition, purpose, and both parameters adequately. Only minor gaps remain, such as folder prefix matching semantics (deep vs. immediate).

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: folder is defined as an optional vault-relative prefix with a concrete example ('Cards/'), and limit is given a default of 50 plus a hard cap of 500. Nothing about either parameter is left ambiguous.

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?

States a precise verb-and-resource plus the exact qualifying condition: notes with zero incoming AND zero outgoing resolved links. That definition is what separates it from link-centric siblings like get_backlinks, get_links, and get_neighborhood, which each look at one direction only.

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?

Frames the use case explicitly (vault hygiene, 'what's disconnected?', cleanup decisions), which tells an agent when this is the right tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it versus find_related or get_links.

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