Check Roblox APIs for deprecation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real substance: the five checks performed (existence, casing, deprecation with replacement, security level, yielding) plus the source of truth. It doesn't describe response formatting or how results are ordered, keeping it at a 4.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and two sentences total, so it is efficient. The second sentence is a long enumerated clause, but each item adds a distinct verification dimension rather than padding.

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 two-parameter check tool with no output schema, the description enumerates what is verified and where the data comes from, which effectively substitutes for a return-value spec. It leaves the `max_tokens` parameter and any batching/pagination nuance unaddressed, so it is strong but not fully 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 coverage is 50%. The description reinforces the `members` entry format with concrete examples ("Humanoid.MoveTo", "task.wait") that mostly echo the schema's own description, while the second parameter, `max_tokens`, gets no mention at all. Adequate but not fully compensating for the coverage gap.

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: batch-checks Roblox APIs against the live API dump and official docs. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_engine_api (lookup) and search_creator_docs (search) by being a validation/deprecation check, so an agent can route correctly without opening other schemas.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to reach for it: 'whenever you are about to write or review Roblox code,' motivated by models reproducing retired APIs. Strong context, but it never names an alternative (e.g. get_engine_api) or states when not to use it, so it stops short of the 5 benchmark.

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