find_orphans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond that: the default exclusion of root/sentinel kinds and the specific matching policy (full slug or final segment). This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting the 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: the definition, the use cases, and the matching policy plus default exclusions. There is zero waste or 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?

For a read-only list tool with a full output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, use cases, matching policy, and default exclusions. It doesn't describe the output format, but that is handled by the output schema. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly mention pagination or performance, but these are not critical for a tool like this.

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 description coverage is 100% – both 'kind' and 'excludeKinds' have descriptive text in the schema, including the default value for excludeKinds. The tool description reinforces the default exclusion but does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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's purpose: 'List orphan nodes' and defines exactly what an orphan node is ('docs that no other node references via any frontmatter array key'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling find_backlinks by referencing the same matching policy, so an agent can differentiate them without inspecting schemas.

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 gives a clear use case ('cleanup starting point' and 'which nodes are unused?') and explicitly notes that the matching policy is shared with find_backlinks, which implicitly tells an agent that find_backlinks is the counterpart for finding referenced nodes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for different scenarios, so it's slightly short of a 5.

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