Get unused components

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds the useful behavioral trait that the result is computed globally and independent of file order, which goes beyond the basic 'return' semantics and helps set expectations for the agent.

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 long, front-loads the core purpose, and includes a meaningful additional detail about global computation. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 tool is simple (one well-documented parameter) and the description fully specifies its purpose and key behavioral characteristic. Even without an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and understand the expected result.

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 already provides a 100% description coverage for the single 'root' parameter (absolute path to the project root). The description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and a clear resource definition: 'every component that is imported somewhere in the project but rendered nowhere'. This precisely distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_component or get_routes, which target different aspects of the project.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (to find unused components) and notes that it is computed globally, giving context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5 on the usage guidelines scale.

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