Deprecated Package Check

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by explaining it checks both npm deprecated flags and a curated list of known replacements, which is beyond the annotation info.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, but includes multiple example lines that could be condensed. The examples add value, so it remains concise enough without being bloated.

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 straightforward read-only nature and the absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what is detected and provides concrete replacement examples. It does not explain return format, but that is not critical for this simple detection tool.

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 covers both parameters (project, directory) with 100% description coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It does not meaningfully expand on the schema, warranting the baseline of 3.

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 a specific verb 'Detect' and identifies the resource (deprecated, unmaintained, or replaced packages). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on deprecation status via npm flags and a curated replacement list, unlike CVE or secrets tools.

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 example user queries but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusionary notes versus comparable tools like depsonar_audit or depsonar_check. It implies usage through examples but does not clearly state alternatives or when not to use.

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