find_dead_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses read-only behavior, the exact definition of 'dead' (zero references), the two result statuses with their implications, implicit constructor handling, and known false positives (factories, ISRs, virtual overrides, weak aliases). This is exceptionally transparent.

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 long but every sentence earns its place. It uses clear section labels ('What "dead" means', 'Returns two categories', 'Known remaining false positives') and front-loads the core purpose. No filler or tautology—each paragraph adds distinct, actionable information.

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?

The description is complete for a complex tool: it covers the exact semantics of dead vs possibly_dead, the return format, false positives, index prerequisites, and when to use alternative tools. Given the rich output schema and no annotations, this description leaves little ambiguity for an agent to 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance for `project_only` (mentions the `is_project` column and config respect), clarifies `exclude_paths` as a user-supplied parameter (not config), and explains the default vendor path exclusion behavior. It does not cover `image` and `variant`, but those are already well-documented in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Find C/C++ functions that are defined but never called — libclang-powered dead code detection across the entire indexed codebase.' It clearly distinguishes from text-based search and other sibling tools by emphasizing global reference analysis, so the purpose is unmistakable.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: it warns that 'text-based search cannot determine whether a function is actually reachable,' and points to `find_callees_recursive` for transitive reachability and `find_indirect_targets` for verifying uncertain hits. It also instructs to always verify before deleting, providing clear usage boundaries.

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