find_dead_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it only restates the tool's name-level purpose. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only analysis, how code is traversed, what counts as dead code, or what limitations exist.

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 extremely concise with no filler or redundant wording. It is slightly too sparse to be fully helpful, but it is appropriately front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter analysis tool, the description provides enough to invoke it with a path. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what the tool returns or how results are formatted, which leaves a notable gap in completeness.

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% for the single 'path' parameter, which already documents that it is a directory or file path. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully covers the parameter.

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 a specific action — identifying and locating unused code — with a clear target resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like detect_code_smells or analyze_dependencies, but the core purpose is evident.

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 choose this tool over siblings or when it should not be used. The description implies a scenario (finding unused code) but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons with alternatives.

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