tldr_dead

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

No annotations exist, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a non-destructive read operation but doesn't confirm it, nor does it discuss authorization, side effects, or limitations like needing compiled sources.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage context. No filler, front-loaded, earns its space.

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?

No output schema and no description of return format. Users don't know what results look like (e.g., file paths, line numbers). Given many sibling tools with richer outputs, this lacks completeness for a code analysis tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters with brief descriptions, meeting the baseline for score 3. The tool description adds zero extra meaning beyond the schema, so no uplift.

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 finds unreachable code, using specific verb 'find' and resource 'unreachable (dead) code'. It distinguishes from siblings like tldr_arch or tldr_calls by its unique focus on dead code, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate.

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?

Only mentions it's useful for cleanup and refactoring, providing very broad context. No guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., tldr_impact for dead code impact), no exclusions or prerequisites.

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