find_dead_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful context by defining the scope (functions and private methods) and the criteria (not referenced locally), but it does not explicitly confirm a read-only operation or describe the output shape, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a single concise phrase with no filler or redundant words. The key subject is front-loaded, making it easy to scan. However, it is a sentence fragment, which slightly reduces structural completeness but not enough to lower the score further.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin to fully understand the tool's behavior. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of locations) and leaves the phrase 'referenced locally' ambiguous (within the same file vs. project-wide). This significantly limits the agent's ability to correctly anticipate results.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the 'name' parameter with its description 'Name or path of the loaded project'. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, but it clearly identifies the resource scope ('Functions and private methods') and the qualifying condition ('not referenced locally'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like find_unused_variables. It is more specific than a bare tautology, though an action word like 'Find' or 'List' would strengthen clarity.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_unused_variables or find_code_duplication. It also does not mention prerequisites or context, leaving the agent without decision support for selecting this tool.

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