unreferenced

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds a safety warning about verifying before deletion, implying the tool is read-only and results are candidates rather than definitive. However, it does not state read-only behavior explicitly, nor does it describe potential limitations or output characteristics beyond what the output schema provides.

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, front-loaded with purpose, followed by a crucial caution. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description adequately covers the tool's purpose and a key safety caveat, but it leaves parameter semantics entirely undocumented and does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations, leaving gaps for correct invocation.

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 0% for both parameters (limit, include_exported), and the description provides no information about their meaning or effect. The description fails to compensate for the schema's missing parameter documentation.

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 states a specific output type ('Dead-code candidates: functions/classes with no references anywhere'), making the resource and scope clear. It implicitly contrasts with related tools like 'references' by focusing on the absence of references, but does not name siblings explicitly.

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?

It gives a clear workflow: use this to find dead-code candidates, then verify with triggers/grep before deleting. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions or alternative discovery tools, but the guidance is actionable and context-rich.

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