Find Dead Code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond the safety profile: it explains internals ('walks the call graph from all entry points') and the purpose ('safe deletion candidates'). It doesn't describe output format, but the description is still substantive.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero waste; action, mechanism, and usage are front-loaded in that order. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-param analysis tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, mechanism, and when to call. It does not explain return value shape or pagination, but output_schema is absent so that is less critical. Slightly incomplete on result format.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find functions that nothing calls') and elaborates the mechanism ('walks the call graph from all entry points'). Clearly distinguishable from siblings like find_entry_points or get_dependencies.

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 clear intended contexts ('during cleanup or before a release') for when to use it. However, no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives (e.g. vs get_dependencies) is given.

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