sqo_dead_code

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait — that framework entrypoints are treated as roots, so framework-loaded files are not false-flagged — but says nothing about whether it mutates or only reports, cost/runtime over large trees, or what happens with unresolvable imports.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence, which is good, but roughly a third of it is marketing and a version tag ('AI Dead-Code Hunter (v13.0 Zenith)') that conveys nothing an agent can act on. Trimming that would leave a tight, useful sentence.

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 this is close to adequate: the detection mechanism and the problem it solves are both stated. However, with no output schema the description should hint at the result shape (list of orphan paths? counts?), and it never states that the tool is read-only and deletes nothing.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Workspace root directory'), so the schema already documents it. The description adds no meaning about scoping — e.g. path conventions, whether submodules or ignored directories are scanned. 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 names a concrete mechanism — cross-checking all source files against inbound imports and framework entrypoints — and a concrete output, unreferenced orphan files. That distinguishes it from search- or hotspot-oriented siblings without needing to name one. The branding wrapper ('Orphan Module & AI Dead-Code Hunter (v13.0 Zenith)') adds noise but the operative clause is specific.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'bloating context tokens' hints that this is for trimming context, and 'orphan files' implies dead-code cleanup. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the many code-analysis siblings (e.g. find_callers, code_hotspots).

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