detect_dead_code_and_bloat

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the scanning action. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what output format to expect, or any potential side effects. Dropping the burden means an agent cannot anticipate runtime behavior.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and purpose. Every word contributes meaning 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?

For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves out critical details such as expected results, error conditions, and whether the analysis is synchronous. An agent would have insufficient context to call it correctly and interpret the outcome.

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?

The schema already describes the code_snippet parameter (100% coverage). The description adds context about what the tool detects, which implies the snippet should be source code, but it does not specify requirements like language support or size limits. It only slightly enhances the schema's description.

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 scans code for specific issues: dead code, unused imports, redundant re-render triggers, and bloated dependencies. This specific verb and resource set it apart from sibling tools like audit_performance_bottlenecks.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that could overlap (e.g., audit_performance_bottlenecks, modernize_legacy_code), the description does not explain why this tool is the right choice or under what conditions it should be preferred.

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