find_unreachable_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses behavior: how reachability is computed (calls, instantiations, field accesses, etc.), what counts as roots (main methods, test methods), and what the output includes (members with visibility and location). It also clarifies that disabled tests still count as entry points.

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 well-structured with clear sections (USAGE, OUTPUT, explanation of roots, IMPORTANT caveats, Options). It is concise yet comprehensive, with every sentence adding necessary information.

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 the tool's complexity, the description is complete: it explains the algorithm, the meaning of results, limitations (invisible entry points), and prerequisites. No output schema is provided, but the description sufficiently covers the output 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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining defaults ('default true' for includeTestRoots, 'default 100' for maxResults) and context for the options, which goes beyond the schema's type descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Find code unreachable from any entry point, project-wide.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'find_unused_code' by specifying the project-wide scope and entry point focus.

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 explicitly provides usage syntax, outlines options, and gives a critical caveat: results indicate unreachability from declared entry points, not safe-to-delete due to reflection and DI. It also notes the prerequisite 'Requires load_project to be called first.'

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