rush_dead

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 does reveal a useful edge-case behavior: missing engines return status='skipped', and it names the underlying tools. However, it does not mention whether the scan is read-only, whether it requires configuration files, or what other statuses may appear.

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 sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then adds the key engine detail and edge-case behavior. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary explanation.

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 simple path parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, language scope, tooling, and a behavior on missing engines. A minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly map vulture to Python and knip to JS/TS, but this is easily inferred and not critical for invocation.

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 0% description coverage, and the description only repeats the path placeholder as '<path>' without adding format, constraints, or examples. The parameter is self-explanatory from its name and format, so the impact is minor, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 ('Find') with a clear resource ('unused Python and JS/TS code') and a path argument. It also names the underlying tools (vulture or knip), which distinguishes it from siblings like rush_dead_asset and other analysis tools.

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 the tool is for dead code detection and notes behavior when engines are missing, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. The context is clear enough for basic selection, but no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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