find_orphans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the core action—no mention of return format, performance, limitations, or side effects. Since annotations cover safety, this is acceptable but not enhanced.

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 concise sentence that states the core purpose without extraneous words. The key action 'Find disconnected notes' is front-loaded, and the three cases are succinctly listed.

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 tool with no output schema and two parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., note paths), how parameters affect behavior, or how it differs from find_broken_links. An agent might misinterpret 'disconnected' or misuse the parameters.

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 0% and the description does not explain any parameters. The parameter 'include_outlinks_check' is ambiguous—does it control whether outbound links are considered? 'max_results' is somewhat self-explanatory but no behavior is described. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

Clear and specific: it identifies notes with no inbound links, no outbound links, or both. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_backlinks or find_broken_links by focusing on disconnection rather than broken links or individual link queries.

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 a use case (finding orphans) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_broken_links or get_graph_neighbors. No exclusions or comparative guidance are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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