deprecation_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the action (check) and the return content (message), implying a read-only operation. It lacks an explicit side-effect statement, but the verb 'Check' strongly suggests non-mutating behavior.

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, concise sentence that conveys all necessary information without redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse, with no filler or ambiguous wording.

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 description mentions the output (including the replacement message) but does not specify the exact return format (e.g., boolean, object with fields). Given the low complexity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description provides enough context for basic usage but could be more explicit.

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?

Both parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema, including examples for 'name' and a full explanation of the 'registry' enum with defaults and language associations. Schema coverage is 100%, and the descriptions add meaningful guidance beyond field labels.

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 uses the specific verb 'Check' and clearly identifies the resource (npm/PyPI packages) and the specific status (deprecated/yanked). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like package_health or vulnerability_check by focusing solely on deprecation/yank status.

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 provides clear context about what the tool does and what it returns (including the replacement message), making its intended use obvious. It does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus siblings, but the specific purpose is self-evident from the name and description.

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