List orphans

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'List ... Longhorn has detected' implies a read-only report of pre-existing state rather than an active scan, and the doc link adds useful feature context. However, it never explicitly states that the operation is side-effect free, what the response contains, or that no cleanup is triggered.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the verb and resource immediately, followed by a relevant official doc link. Every element earns its place and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource type precisely and links to documentation on orphaned-data cleanup. The only gaps are an unstated response shape and an explicit read-only guarantee, but nothing an agent needs in order to select and invoke it correctly is absent.

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 has zero parameters (coverage is vacuously 100%), and the description correctly adds no parameter detail since none exist. Per the zero-parameter baseline, a 4 is appropriate; nothing is missing or unexplained.

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 ('List') and a precise resource ('orphaned replica/engine instance directories'), adding the scope qualifier 'Longhorn has detected'. This clearly distinguishes it from the only related sibling, orphan_get, and from all other list tools by naming a unique resource.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided; the description never contrasts with orphan_get or other listing tools. The doc link offers background context rather than selection criteria, so usage is only implied: this is the read-only report of orphans Longhorn has already detected.

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