find_unused

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure. It states read-only nature, defines the search scope precisely, and explicitly notes that visual usage is not scanned. This gives the agent a clear safety profile and accurate expectations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb 'Find', and every clause adds value. It is concise without being terse, providing essential scope details without redundancy.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, scope exclusions, and safety characteristic (read-only). However, it does not describe return format or result structure, leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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 schema has one required parameter (sessionId) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention this parameter at all. While sessionId is likely a standard session identifier, the description provides no compensation for the missing schema description, leaving the parameter underdefined.

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 identifies the tool's function: finding columns and measures never referenced in the model, with explicit enumeration of what counts as a reference (relationships, sort-by, hierarchy levels, RLS, DAX). It distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools by specifying the exact scope and excluding visual usage.

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 implies usage via 'cleanup shortlist' and states it is read-only, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like analyze_dependencies or impact_analysis. There is no direct 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance.

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