find_orphans

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the heuristic nature, warns against auto-delete, and explains the entry point exclusion behavior. This provides adequate transparency for an analysis tool, though it could mention that it only finds exports, not internal unused code.

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 three concise sentences with no unnecessary information. It front-loads the purpose ('Dead-code candidates') and adds essential usage guidance efficiently.

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 and only 2 simple parameters, the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool finds, its heuristic nature, and the entry point behavior. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., list of paths), which could be useful for an agent to understand the return type.

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% (both root and includeEntryPoints are described in the schema). The description does not add additional parameter details beyond the schema, so it scores the baseline 3.

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 it finds dead-code candidates (exported files/components/functions that nothing imports, renders, or calls). The term 'orphans' suggests unused exports, which distinguishes it from siblings like find_references (which find references) and who_calls/who_renders (which find usage). The verb 'find' and resource 'orphans' are 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?

The description provides guidance by noting it excludes entry points unless includeEntryPoints is set, and explicitly says 'Heuristic — review, do not auto-delete,' which advises caution. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving room for slight ambiguity.

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