vulture_check

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that the operation is safe or repeatable. The description adds the Vulture identity but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as scope limits or output behavior, which leaves it adequate but not enriched.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It uses every word to convey the tool's core purpose and mechanism.

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 tool is simple, read-only, idempotent, and has an output schema, which reduces some burden on the description. However, the complete lack of parameter guidance leaves an agent guessing about how to specify paths and what changed_only=true actually controls, making the definition only minimally 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'paths' or 'changed_only' parameters at all. The agent must infer their meaning entirely from parameter names, with no supporting detail about accepted path types or what 'changed' refers to.

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 action ('Find') and the resource ('unused Python code'), and it names Vulture's dead-code analysis as the mechanism. It is distinct in function from sibling tools like ruff_check, ty_check, and bandit_check, though it does not explicitly contrast them.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent should call this when unused Python code needs to be detected. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools or any exclusion conditions, so the guidance is only implicit.

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