lilbrain_deadcode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it states the detection criterion (zero callers), the organization (grouped by subsystem), and an output dimension (LOC waste estimate). It does not discose limitations or how staleness is handled, but for a read-only analysis tool this is strong behavior transparency.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. 'Find dead code' leads, and the operational definition and output details follow immediately. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is sufficiently complete: an agent knows what to invoke it for, what counts as dead code, how results are organized, and what quantitative estimate to expect.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema offers nothing to explain; the description does not need to add parameter semantics. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool earns a baseline of 4.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Find dead code' concretely defined as 'functions with zero callers.' It also names two output features—subsystem grouping and LOC waste estimate—that make the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like lilbrain_callers or lilbrain_overview.

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 clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when dead code detection is needed, and it precisely scopes that to functions with no callers. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a zero-parameter tool the intended use is obvious.

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