find_dead_code

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

The description lacks annotations, so it must carry the full burden. It states the core behavior but does not disclose limitations (e.g., static analysis, language support) or side effects. The behavior is straightforward enough for a basic understanding, but additional detail would improve transparency.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and direct, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient for a static analysis tool. However, it lacks context on prerequisites, supported languages, or how to interpret results, so it is not entirely complete.

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% with both parameters already described (project_root: auto-detected if omitted; limit: max results default 100). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Find functions/methods that are defined but never called' uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('functions/methods that are defined but never called'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_references or find_callers that deal with specific symbol references or callers.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or contrast with siblings like find_callers or find_references.

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