dead_find_unused_vars

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool finds, but not whether it is read-only, what output it returns, what languages it supports, or whether it performs static analysis only. 'Find' implies analysis, but important behavioral details are absent.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for the limited information it communicates, though it is also under-specified in other dimensions.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter tool, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description still leaves key gaps: no return format, no explanation of api_key, no language scope, and no alternative routing. An agent could call it with the required directory, but it cannot fully understand behavior or 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?

Schema coverage is only 50%: the directory parameter has a minimal description, while api_key has none. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning and never mentions api_key, leaving an agent to guess what api_key is for or whether it must be supplied.

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 clear verb ('Find') with a specific resource: declared variables, functions, and parameters that are never used. This scope differentiates it from sibling tools like dead_find_unused_exports and dead_find_unused_imports without needing to open their schemas.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus the related dead_* tools, nor any mention of limitations or prerequisites. The scoped phrasing ('variables, functions, and parameters') gives only an implicit hint, but the description never says 'use this for local dead code' or 'use dead_find_unused_exports for exports'.

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