css_find_unused

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a static analysis operation ('comparing stylesheets against HTML/JSX content') and implies a non-mutating read-only analysis. However, it does not mention authentication via api_key, potential external calls, or limitations of the selector matching logic.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the action and scope. There is no redundant wording, and it conveys the core operation without unnecessary detail.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple analysis tool with clear inputs and 100% schema coverage. However, since there is no output schema, it does not explain what the result looks like, how unused selectors are returned, or whether the tool also reports counts/locations. The presence of an optional api_key also suggests authentication context that is not clarified.

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 description coverage is 100%, with css and html already described as the stylesheet content and the HTML/JSX content to check against. The description adds little beyond the schema, but it does reinforce the relationship between the two required inputs. The optional api_key parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Find unused CSS selectors by comparing stylesheets against HTML/JSX content.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like css_find_duplicates and css_optimize. An agent can understand exactly what the tool does and when it applies.

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 purpose and inputs make the usage context clear: use this when you have CSS and HTML/JSX content and want to identify unused selectors. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, such as when duplicate or optimization analysis is needed.

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