check_warp_drive_deprecations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a read-only lookup operation ('Check if...') and provides additional context about common deprecations and valid input examples. It doesn't mention side effects or permissions, but the tool's nature makes these unnecessary.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a 'Use this when' section, and a 'Common deprecations' list. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the content is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and examples effectively. It doesn't specify the return format, but the straightforward nature of the tool makes that less critical. It also differentiates well from siblings.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing concrete examples of valid apiName values (e.g., 'StableRecordIdentifier', '@ember-data/request') and listing common deprecations, which helps the agent understand what to pass.

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's function: 'Check if a WarpDrive or EmberData API is deprecated and find its replacement.' This is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like search_warp_drive_docs by focusing on deprecation status rather than general documentation.

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 an explicit 'Use this when' list covering legacy code, deprecation warnings, strikethrough symbols, and migrations. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools for when not to use it.

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