dead_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it finds only unexported unreferenced symbols within a directory, adding some behavioral context. However, it does not explain how 'unreferenced' is determined, whether cross-package references are considered, or what the return format looks like.

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 that clearly states the action and scope without extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only analysis tool with two fully documented parameters, the description covers the core function and scope adequately. Although there is no output schema or return format explained, the nature of the tool makes the result (a list of dead symbols) reasonably implicit. Slightly more detail on the definition of 'unreferenced' would make it fully 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 coverage is 100%, with both 'path' and 'include_tests' fully described. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Finds unreferenced unexported symbols (functions, types, variables) within a directory' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the tool's scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_declarations or find_usages by focusing on unreferenced, unexported symbols.

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 for dead code detection within a directory but does not provide explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative tools. There is no exclusionary context, so the usage is only implied.

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