audit_orphans

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

With no annotations, the description effectively conveys behavioral traits: finds orphans using thematic scoring, excludes hidden articles, and optionally saves results to file for large sites. However, it does not specify whether the tool modifies data or just reports.

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 a single paragraph with essential information: purpose, scoring, defaults, and options. No wasted words, but could be more structured for easier reading.

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?

Covers the main functionality including scoring and hidden article exclusion, but lacks clarity on output format (list of orphans with donor articles) and whether the tool executes link additions or only suggests them. No output schema exacerbates this gap.

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 33% (only 'count' has a description). The description adds context for 'count' (affects graph) and 'saveToFile' (for large sites), but does not explain the 'site' parameter. This partially compensates for schema gaps.

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 tool audits orphan articles (those with no 'Also read' references) and details the scoring method. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'audit_content' and 'suggest_links' by focusing specifically on orphans and donor suggestions.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'suggest_links' or 'audit_content'. Description implies usage for improving internal linking but does not provide context for when to choose this tool.

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