cerebro_dead_symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explicitly discloses the heuristic nature and warns about dynamic access and reflection causing false positives, adding important behavioral context beyond a mere listing.

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-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value, including the comparison and the caution.

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 description adequately explains what the tool does and its limitations. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, it omits any explanation of the single input parameter 'prefix', leaving a gap in 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 input schema has one parameter 'prefix' with a default but no description. Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the prefix parameter or explain its purpose, so it adds no meaning 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 clearly states it lists unused-export candidates (functions/classes/methods) at the symbol level, and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'cerebro_orphans' which works per-file. This provides a specific verb and resource with differentiation.

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 notes that the results are a heuristic and warns to confirm before deleting, offering caution about usage. It also compares to 'cerebro_orphans' to indicate when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not exhaustively list when to use or not use this tool versus all siblings.

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