cerebro_dead_symbols

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses important limitations: the tool is a heuristic, can miss used symbols due to dynamic access and reflection, and advises caution before deleting. This is transparent but could add more detail on performance or scope.

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?

Two sentences: first delivers core purpose and distinction, second adds critical caveat. Front-loaded and efficient with no wasted words.

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 the tool's heuristic nature and presence of an output schema (presumably documenting return values), the description covers the essential behavioral context. Minor gap: no mention of prefix parameter or typical use scenarios.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'prefix'. The tool description does not clarify the parameter's meaning or usage, leaving it underdocumented.

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?

Clearly describes the tool's purpose: listing unused-export candidates (functions/classes/methods) based on name references in imported files. Distinguishes itself from sibling 'cerebro_orphans' by specifying the per-file vs symbol-level scope.

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?

Provides contrast with sibling tool 'cerebro_orphans', giving context for when to use this one. Mentions heuristic nature and suggests confirmation before deletion, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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