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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this tool mutates state, whether it overwrites an existing catalog, whether it requires prior scan results, or what the output/return value looks like. 'Build' implies creation, but the side effects are unclear.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, though it could benefit from a bit more specificity.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what the catalog contains, whether the tool is safe/read-only, how it relates to apidepr_scan or apidepr_status, or what a successful invocation returns. More behavioral and usage context is needed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'notes' parameter as 'Deprecation notes'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond that, only implying that the notes are the source for the catalog. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a verb ('Build') and a resource ('deprecation catalog') with a source ('from notes'), so it conveys the basic action. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like apidepr_status or apidepr_scan, and 'catalog' is somewhat vague about what the output actually is.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus apidepr_status or apidepr_scan. The description implies it is for building a catalog from notes, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or alternative routing.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by using the word 'scan,' but it does not state side effects, return format, or whether any system state is affected. No contradiction exists, but significant behavioral context is missing.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and target. It contains no wasted words or filler. While it is sparse, it is efficient and easy 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of context. It explains the action but not the input's role, the return value, or the distinction from sibling tools. An agent may not know what 'deprecated annotations/comments' means in this codebase or what the scan produces, making the definition incomplete.

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 100%: the only parameter, root, is documented as 'Project root path.' The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning or usage detail. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage, but the description does not enhance understanding of how root is used.

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 states a specific verb 'Scan' and a clear object 'deprecated annotations/comments,' so the core function is identifiable. It is not a tautology and conveys the resource being acted on. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings apidepr_status and apidepr_catalog, preventing a top score.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative suggestions. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the tool name and the minimal description.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but there is no disclosure of what the output looks like, whether any state changes occur, or what 'scan root' means in practice.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main verb, though the ambiguity of 'scan root' slightly reduces its efficiency.

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?

While the tool is simple and parameterless, the lack of annotations, output schema, and usage context leaves the agent without enough information about what a status report contains or how it relates to the sibling scan/catalog 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema has 100% description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. This is an appropriate baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 states a verb and resource ('Show scan root') but 'scan root' is unclear jargon and is not positioned relative to sibling tools. It is not a tautology, but it leaves the exact object and outcome of the tool ambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus apidepr_scan or apidepr_catalog. The name suggests a status/read operation, but the description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives.

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