find_unused_symbols

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: filters out test methods, MCP tools, source-generator output, MEF-composed services, and interop-laid-out fields. It also describes the return envelope structure.

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 relatively concise and front-loaded with purpose. It lists filtered-out types efficiently. However, it could be slightly shorter by not listing every filtered category, though it adds value.

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 the tool's complexity (dead code detection, filtering, return envelope), the description covers all key aspects: what it does, filters, and return fields. No output schema exists, but the description explains the return structure. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides for parameters. It mentions limit in the envelope description but not as a parameter detail.

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 potentially unused types and members (dead code detection) and specifies that it checks public symbols across the solution. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_uncovered_symbols.

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 implies usage for dead code detection but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It does not differentiate from similar tools like find_uncovered_symbols.

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