cerebro_orphans

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 explains that framework entrypoints are listed separately due to convention loading, adding behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose permissions, destructive behavior, or other traits, leaving some gaps.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary 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 one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description is fairly complete. It explains output composition and special handling of framework entrypoints. However, omitting details about the 'prefix' parameter and read-only nature slightly reduces completeness.

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 only parameter 'prefix' has a default value of empty string in the schema, but the description does not explain its purpose or usage. With 0% schema description coverage, the tool definition fails to add meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 clearly states the tool lists code files that nothing imports, identifying dead-code candidates. It further distinguishes framework entrypoints (modules, controllers, etc.) as listed separately, differentiating it from siblings like 'cerebro_dead_symbols' and 'cerebro_endpoints'.

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 used for detecting dead code, but it does not explicitly specify when to use it over siblings or provide any exclusions. The presence of sibling names gives context but no direct guidance.

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