graph_dead

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the tool REFUSES with status 'refused' when a source is unreadable, and explains the rationale. It also states 'Never a deletion recommendation', which adds important behavioral context for an agent deciding whether to rely on the output. This is meaningful beyond the read-only hint, though it doesn't cover output format or pagination.

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, concise and front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence. However, the first sentence is somewhat cryptic and could be clearer, but it earns points for brevity and focus.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the core behavior (identifying dead symbols), the refusal condition, and the non-deletion stance. It doesn't specify the output format, but the parameter schema covers parameter details. For a read-only analysis tool with optional params, this is fairly complete.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents their meaning. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 defines the tool's output as 'Symbols with no accepted reference that no declared entry point names', which identifies dead symbols, but it lacks an explicit action verb like 'list' or 'find'. It distinguishes from siblings like graph_impact by focusing on dead symbols, though it doesn't name the alternative directly.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as graph_impact or graph_path. It only mentions behavioral conditions (refusing on unreadable sources) and the non-deletion recommendation, but no when-to-use or alternatives.

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