find_unused_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions the prerequisite (load_project) and lists detections, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, side-effect-free, or its performance implications. The output is described as a 'list of unused private members' without format details.

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 concise, using clear sections (USAGE, OUTPUT, DETECTS, REQUIRES). It is well-structured and easy to scan, with no superfluous sentences.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is fairly complete but lacks explicit output format (e.g., list of strings, paths). It does not mention whether it runs on all files by default or performance considerations.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds usage context for filePath via examples but does not explain includeFields or includeMethods (they default true). It does not map the detected categories directly to the boolean parameters.

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 private methods and fields, with specific detections listed (unused private methods, fields, write-only fields). This distinguishes it from generic analysis tools like find_references or find_method_references.

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 provides concrete usage examples with and without the filePath parameter. It explicitly requires load_project to be called first, giving clear preconditions. However, it does not suggest alternative tools for different use cases.

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