dead_code

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations: it defines what counts as dead code, explains that dynamic dispatch and reflection reduce confidence, and advises manual review below ~0.9. This gives the agent realistic expectations about the tool's heuristic nature and limitations.

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 one dense sentence that front-loads the call trigger ('Call before deleting code, or when asked what is unused') followed by output semantics and a practical caveat. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant or ornamental language.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the tool. It adequately explains what is returned (unused symbols with confidence scores) and how to interpret the result (check below 0.9). The tool is fully usable from this description alone.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately focuses on output meaning rather than inputs. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 function: it returns symbols with no resolved caller, no name-match caller, and no path from any entry point, each with a confidence score. This is a specific verb-plus-resource definition that makes the core purpose obvious. It does not explicitly name sibling tools for comparison, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives explicit triggers: 'Call before deleting code, or when asked what is unused.' This tells an agent when to invoke the tool. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the opportunity to route agents away from similar analysis tools like impact_of or callers_of.

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