palinode_orphan_repair

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral context: it is used for broken links, returns existing files, and is safe for maintenance. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Description is concise (3-4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core function. Every sentence adds necessary context without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description indicates the return type: existing memory files semantically near the link. It explains the tool's purpose for maintenance. Slightly missing explicit ordering or ranking info, but overall sufficient given parameter hints.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description adds value beyond schema: it clarifies that broken_link accepts both [[name]] and bare name, and explains that min_similarity default is looser than dedup_suggest. This helps the agent understand parameter intent.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's function: given a wikilink to a missing file, return semantically near existing files. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dedup_suggest by specifying the context of orphan repair and the action of proposing redirects or creating new files.

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?

Explicitly mentions usage during 'wiki-maintenance passes' and describes two use cases: proposing a redirect or creating a missing file. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, though the context is clear.

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