find_dead_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral nuance—that dead_code is proven unreachable while unreferenced_exports may be used outside the scan—but it does not address other aspects like read-only nature, side effects, performance, or result format. The coverage is minimal.

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?

Two sentences with zero wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence clarifies the output categories. Highly efficient and well-structured.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description leaves important context missing: what the results look like (e.g., file paths, symbol names), how limit and depth interact, and whether the scan is read-only. The description is too sparse for a 7-parameter tool without an output schema.

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%, meaning all 7 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter semantics.

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: finding declared symbols that nothing references. It specifies the resource (declared symbols) and the action (finds unreferenced ones). It also adds nuance by distinguishing dead_code from unreferenced_exports, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_code_smells or get_code_inventory, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative code-analysis siblings. The description does not mention any exclusions, alternatives, or context that would help an agent decide between find_dead_code and other similar tools. This is a clear gap.

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