dep_check_deprecated

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the mechanism (checking the 'deprecated' field in node_modules) and the consequence (no security patches). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it mention any prerequisites or error conditions.

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 two sentences, directly stating the purpose and a key implication. No superfluous words, and the most important information is 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?

While the description covers the core function, it is incomplete regarding output (no schema) and does not explain what the tool returns (list of deprecated packages? errors?). It also does not mention handling of missing node_modules or other edge cases. For a simple tool with one parameter, this is passable but not thorough.

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 already describes the only parameter 'path' as 'Project directory with node_modules' (100% schema coverage). The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond implying the path should contain node_modules. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 detects deprecated dependencies by checking a specific field in package.json. It uses a specific verb ('detect') and resource ('deprecated dependencies'), and the method is described. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dep_check_install_scripts or dep_check_license.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or suggestions for alternative tools. The context implies it is for security checks, but no comparative guidance is given.

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