Dead Code Analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations by listing exactly what the analysis detects (orphan files, unused exports, etc.) and its coverage of whole modules. This enriches the agent's understanding of scope without contradicting any annotation.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core detection types, and adds a distinguishing comparative statement. Every word carries meaning with no redundancy or fluff.

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 single-parameter schema, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function and scope. It might benefit from mentioning the output format (e.g., list of dead code locations), but this is not critical since the tool is clearly an analysis utility and the annotations cover safety. Overall complete for practical use.

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 is fully documented as 'Absolute path to the repository root'. The description adds no extra parameter information, so it does not go beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's verb (detect) and resource (dead code), enumerates specific detection types (orphan files, unused exports, unused dependencies, unreachable code, commented-out blocks, duplicate files), and explicitly contrasts with per-symbol analysis, distinguishing it from the sibling dead_exports. No ambiguity.

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?

The description implies usage for comprehensive dead code detection and notes it catches whole dead modules that per-symbol analysis misses, providing some context for choosing this over alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. dead_exports or other siblings, nor does it give exclusion criteria.

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