vulture-scan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not mention that the tool only analyzes input without modifying it, nor does it discuss any other behavioral traits like output format or limitations beyond 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 a single clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and siblings, the description lacks context about output format, prerequisites, or when to use this over other tools. It does not explain what VULTURE detects or any important usage notes.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Both parameters are adequately described in the schema.

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 it detects dead/unused code using VULTURE, which is a specific verb and resource. While it distinguishes from siblings like ruff-check and ty-check by focusing on dead code, it doesn't explicitly contrast with analyze-code, which might also analyze code quality.

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. The description does not mention scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate, such as when checking type errors or formatting issues with sibling tools.

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