dead_cleanup_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does clarify the output is a plan, implying the tool does not directly execute removals, and 'safely' suggests careful handling. However, it does not explain what the plan contains, whether an API key is required for the Pro feature, or if any side effects occur.

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, front-loaded sentence with minimal waste. The '(Pro feature)' parenthetical is somewhat useful context but is not explained, so it does not earn its place fully.

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 too thin for a tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It omits what the prioritized plan looks like, how 'directory' is used, what api_key is for, and whether the tool can be run safely without modifying code.

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 only 50%: 'directory' is documented as 'Project directory', but 'api_key' has no description. The tool description adds no param-level meaning, leaving the api_key parameter completely unexplained and the role of the directory only minimally implied.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Generate'), a concrete resource ('a prioritized plan'), and the target scope ('dead code'). It also implies a non-detection role compared to sibling tools like dead_find_unused_exports by focusing on a removal plan rather than discovery.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites such as first detecting dead code with dead_find_* tools, nor does it state when this tool should be chosen over those alternatives.

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