npmDeprecated

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints: readOnlyHint=true (safe operation), openWorldHint=true (handles unknown packages), and idempotentHint=true (repeatable). The description adds no additional context beyond the basic purpose, such as rate limits, error handling, or output format details, so it meets the lower bar set by annotations but doesn't enrich understanding.

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, direct sentence: 'Check if packages are deprecated'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, high schema coverage, annotations covering safety and behavior), the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks output schema, so the agent doesn't know the return format (e.g., boolean, detailed status), which is a gap for a check operation. However, annotations provide some behavioral context, keeping it at a baseline level.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'packages' parameter clearly documented as 'List of package names to check for deprecation'. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it defaults to the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 'Check if packages are deprecated' clearly states the verb ('Check') and resource ('packages'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings (like npmVulnerabilities or npmMaintenance), which might also involve checking package status, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like npmVulnerabilities and npmMaintenance that might overlap in checking package issues, the agent has to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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