Codebase Unused Modules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the actual heuristics used to classify a module as used rather than just asserting 'unused', which is the behavior an agent most needs to trust the output. It still omits whether results derive from a pre-built codebase index (a sibling, codebase_index_refresh, suggests staleness is possible), so it is not fully 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the definition and followed by the precise criteria that qualify a module, ending with the actionable framing 'Candidates for removal.' No filler, and the ordering matches how an agent would evaluate the result.

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?

For a zero-parameter analysis tool with an output schema already covering return shape, the description supplies the classification semantics needed to interpret results correctly. The one gap worth noting is the absence of any mention of index freshness or prerequisites, which would matter for trusting a stale-codebase result.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description adds no parameter detail because none is needed.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (custom/contrib modules) and then operationalizes the key term by defining exactly what makes a module 'used' (dependency, service injection, hook implementation). This crisply separates it in spirit from near-neighbors like codebase_redundancy_check and module_dependencies_analyze, though it never names an alternative, so it stops short of the full 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?

The classification rules and the trailing phrase 'Candidates for removal' imply the intent (find dead modules before cleanup/removal), which is genuine implied-usage guidance. However, it never states when to reach for this instead of dependency_scan, module_dependencies_analyze, or codebase_redundancy_check, so an agent must infer the routing.

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