Scan project code to identify deprecated annotations and comments, enabling tracking of deprecated endpoints and features.
Scan for deprecated annotations/comments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | No | Project root path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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.