get_orphans_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that Journal and Templates are excluded by default, which is a behavioral trait beyond what the schema reveals. It also states the structure of the response (data.items is a list of paths), which is useful. This adds significant context, though it could be more explicit about the meaning of the output, so 4.

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, two sentences, and front-loads the core function. The second sentence adds the exclusion default and output format. No waste, but it could be structured to include more explicit usage context. So 4.

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?

This is a relatively simple tool with two optional parameters and an output schema that likely describes the data.items structure. The description covers the main behavior and the response format, which is sufficient. However, it doesn't mention the exact format of the paths or the impact of the exclude_folders parameter, but given the output schema exists, this is adequate. Score 4.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the vault or exclude_folders parameters at all. However, the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, and the description does mention the default exclusion of Journal and Templates, which implies how exclude_folders works. But this is not enough to fully compensate, so 3.

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 that no other note links to (orphans), which is a specific concept. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_backlinks and get_broken_links by focusing on notes with no incoming links. However, it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, so it loses a point for not providing that differentiation.

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 implies the tool is for finding orphan notes, which is a clear context, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There's no mention of alternatives or exclusions beyond the default folders. This is clear but limited, so it scores 3.

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