find_dead_code

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

With no annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral trait: it does not authorize deletion. It also indicates results are confidence-scored. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or return format details, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 main action. It contains no fluff and every word adds meaning.

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?

The description gives the core behavior and safety guarantee, but lacks details about result structure (e.g., confidence score format) and any preconditions. Given no output schema and no annotations, a bit more context would be helpful, but it is minimally adequate.

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 67%, and the description compensates for the undocumented 'kind' parameter by listing the four candidate types. Limit and offset are already described in the schema, so the description adds value by clarifying the enum semantics.

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 purpose: returning confidence-scored unused candidates across four specific types (module, function, remote, attribute). It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource, and the 'without authorizing deletion' clause distinguishes it from mutation tools.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for dead code analysis but does not name alternative tools or exclusion criteria. Sibling tools like analyze_project and find_dependencies are not referenced.

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