Analyze the reference graph to return liveness verdicts on dead code and advisories on declarations no other file references.
Liveness verdicts over the reference graph, plus the symbol-level advisory of declarations no other file spells — never a verdict (ce.deadcode-report schema).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | subpath (default: project root) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 discloses that output is 'advisory ... never a verdict' and references the ce.deadcode-report schema, which usefully frames the result as non-definitive, but it does not state read-only safety, side effects, or analysis scope.
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?
A single sentence, so it is compact, but the dense jargon and the trailing 'never a verdict' clause make it less front-loaded and less immediately parseable than it could be.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description should carry more weight. It gives a bare conceptual hint about the return (liveness verdicts plus advisory) but leaves the agent without a clear sense of what the report contains or when to prefer this tool over related analysis siblings.
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% and the single path parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'subpath (default: project root).' The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that.
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?
Describes output as 'liveness verdicts over the reference graph' and 'advisory of declarations no other file spells,' which conveys dead-code analysis. However, it uses noun phrases rather than a clear verb and the parenthetical 'never a verdict' muddies the action, so it falls short of a crisp, sibling-differentiating purpose statement.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Alternatives like scan, check, or structure are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer that this is the dead-code option from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.