Find orphan notes

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as idempotency, potential performance impact of scanning many notes, or whether it only considers links within the vault. The tool's read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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?

Two sentences with zero redundancy. The first sentence gives the core purpose, and the second provides a usage hint. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It doesn't explain the output format, how 'orphan' is precisely defined (e.g., notes with no incoming links at all, or within certain limits?), or how scope is affected by folder and sample_size. Missing details that would help an agent anticipate results.

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 67%; the folder and sample_size parameters have useful descriptions, but the limit parameter lacks semantic explanation beyond default and constraints. The description adds marginal value over the schema, but the uncovered limit parameter reduces the score.

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 verb 'Find' and the specific resource 'notes with no incoming links'. It adds purpose context with 'surface forgotten ideas or candidates for cleanup', and differentiates from sibling tools like find_broken_links and get_backlinks.

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?

Provides a use case ('surface forgotten ideas or cleanup candidates') but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like find_broken_links or traverse_graph. No exclusions or context for when to prefer other tools.

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