find_unused

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior (default limit 200, has_more flag), return type (object with pagination and flat array of strings), and includes an example. It also notes the entry point caveat. No contradictions.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear headers and sections. Every sentence adds value: purpose, pagination details, return format, use cases, note, and example. No unnecessary words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains pagination, return structure, when to use, and a critical caveat. Agents have enough information to properly invoke and interpret results.

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 minimal extra context beyond schema: mentions default limit of 200 and pagination structure. This is useful but not substantially extending parameter understanding.

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 finds unused files that no other files import, with the purpose of identifying orphaned files for safe removal. It uses specific verb 'find' and resource 'unused files', distinguishing it from siblings like 'find_circular' or 'find_hotspots'.

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?

Explicit 'Use this when:' section lists three specific scenarios: cleaning dead code, reducing codebase size, and identifying test-only or entry-point files. It also warns that entry points appear unused but should not be deleted, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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