find_deprecated_apis

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 only mentions '(heuristic)' as a caveat, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it scans the entire project, or how results are presented.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main topic and then lists concrete examples. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description conveys the core topic and a heuristic caveat, but lacks details about return values, scan scope, and prerequisites beyond what the schema implies. As a simple find tool with no output schema or annotations, it is minimally adequate but has gaps.

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 fully describes the single parameter ('Name or path of the loaded project') with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameter, but none is needed given the schema's clarity.

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 identifies the specific resource (deprecated Node APIs) and lists concrete examples (new Buffer, url.parse, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb, leaving the action to be inferred from the tool name.

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 provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. The description only lists the APIs checked, with no context about typical use cases or exclusions.

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