unused_code

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

The description transparently states it runs Lighthouse and extracts specific audits, disclosing the method and output (resource bytes, savings). No annotations provided, but the description compensates by clearly describing the tool's behavior.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then explains method, then provides benefit. Clean and efficient.

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 a single required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what results to expect (resource details with bytes and savings). It does not specify response format, but is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 defines a single 'url' parameter with a basic description. The tool description adds context by explaining that the URL is for a page to analyze, and that results include resource details, adding 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 finds unused JavaScript and CSS on a page using Lighthouse audits, specifying exact resource details. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'lighthouse_audit' which may run a full audit.

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 mentions 'Great for reducing bundle size' as a use case, but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or compare to alternatives like 'resource_analysis' or 'performance_audit'.

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