get_deprecation_warnings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a safe lookup and shows that short and fully-qualified names are both accepted, but it never states matching behavior (exact vs. partial), what happens when the name is unknown, or that the call has no side effects.

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?

Purpose and the usage cue are front-loaded, and the Args block is compact and example-driven. The section header formatting is slightly heavier than needed for a single parameter, but nothing is wasted.

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, has one parameter, and ships an output schema, so return values need no explanation; the description covers purpose, usage timing, and input format. Only edge-case behavior for names that aren't found or are ambiguous is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does reasonably: "name: Class or member name to check" plus four concrete examples ("WWW", "FindObjectOfType", "UnityEngine.Component.BroadcastMessage") clarify accepted name forms and qualification levels.

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 and resource: check whether a Unity class/method/property is deprecated and find the replacement. That is clear and concrete, but it never differentiates itself from siblings like get_class_reference or search_unity_api, which could plausibly also surface deprecation information.

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?

"Use this before using any API you suspect might be outdated" gives a clear trigger condition and the FindObjectOfType/FindAnyObjectByType example makes it concrete. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g., when a full class reference lookup is already needed).

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