electron_check_deprecated_apis

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent. The description adds that it scans code (reads input) and returns a list, which is consistent and provides additional context beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. First sentence states action and output, second specifies the return structure. Extremely concise and front-loaded.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the return format adequately. It tells what the tool returns without needing an output schema. Good completeness.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-specific detail, which is acceptable given high coverage. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool scans source code for deprecated or removed Electron APIs and returns a list with replacements and deprecation version. This distinctively separates it from siblings like security or performance audits.

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 implies usage for checking deprecated APIs before migration or cleanup. It doesn't explicitly exclude other tools, but the task is well-scoped. A slight improvement would be adding 'Use this before migrating your Electron version.', but it's clear enough.

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