Codebase Insights

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and responds well for 'dead_code': it labels the check read-only, highlights that no source is deleted, lists confidence/risk/caveats, and disposes of unsupported clause-level analysis. Other actions get lighter treatment and no return-shape details, so the transparency is good but not complete.

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 organized as a summary, per-action bullets, then a short usage block; it is front-loaded and uses lists well for a multi-action tool. The 'Usage' wording does partially repeat the action list, but the repetition is moderate for the complexity being described.

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 no-output-schema tool with seven action modes, the dead_code sub-case is very complete. Other actions are described enough to be understood but 'refactor_opportunities' remains under-specified, and the schema does not actually expose the personnel IDs/symbols/chunk identifiers the description asks for, leaving an invocation gap.

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?

All three actual parameters already have schema descriptions, so the description is not required to carry the parameter documentation burden. It does add meaning by explaining what each action enum value accomplishes. However, the dead_code instructions tell the agent to pass repo_id/symbol/chunk_id arguments that are absent from the provided input-schema, which is misleading for actual call construction.

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 opening sentence names concrete resources — codebase structures, API boundaries, contracts, dependencies, and deletion safety — and the action bullets map directly to the schema enum, so the tool's purpose is clear and distinguishable from search/modify siblings. It loses a point because 'refactor_opportunities' is part of the enum but only mentioned in passing rather than given an explicit action bullet.

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?

It gives explicit guidance for the most complex case: use 'dead_code' as the backend for ask_synapse questions like 'can I delete X?', and prefers the chunk_id over a raw symbol. It also tells the agent to ask for the concrete symbol instead of guessing and to use 'detect' before choosing search modes. It stops short of naming when-not scenarios or explicit sibling exclusions.

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