get_deprecation_warnings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It only states it checks deprecation, with no mention of side effects, rate limits, or that it is a read-only operation. The output schema exists but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic function.

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 concise and front-loaded, containing one sentence for the purpose and a brief parameter doc. No unnecessary words, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool has a single parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate for a simple check. However, it lacks an example or note about return format, though the output schema compensates. It fits well with sibling tools.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides clear semantics for the single parameter 'name', explaining it can be a function, class, property, etc. This adds meaningful guidance beyond the raw schema definition.

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 tool checks deprecation status of an Unreal Engine API, using the verb 'check' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_class_reference' and 'get_function_signature' which serve different purposes.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. While the intent is clear from the name and context, there is no mention of alternatives or prerequisites, relying on the implied context of sibling tools.

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