get_dead_code

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses exclusions of entry points and the need for reindex, but doesn't describe output format, error behavior, or limitations of the analysis.

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?

Three concise sentences with front-loaded main action. No wasted words; each sentence adds essential information (what, exclusions, usage, prerequisite).

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 no output schema, the description misses details about the return structure (e.g., list of file paths). However, the tool's purpose is well-covered for a simple analysis tool with one optional parameter.

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?

The single parameter exclude_patterns is described in both schema and description with examples, adding context beyond the schema (e.g., regex patterns for exclusion). Since schema coverage is 100%, this extra context earns a top score.

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 finds files never imported by any other file (dead code candidates). This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_dependencies which focus on dependencies of a given file.

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?

It explicitly says to use this to identify unused code before cleanup and notes that prior reindex is required. However, it doesn't contrast with alternatives like usage_anomalies or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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