cyberchef_deprecation_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context beyond that by specifying the semantic scope ('current session') and the precise output content (triggered deprecation warnings and v2.0.0 preparation status). No contradictions with 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 focused sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function and scope, the second details what information the statistics include. There is no redundant or filler language.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only stats tool with no output schema, the description is fully adequate: it states what the tool does, its scope, and the substance of the result. Combined with the rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so schema description coverage is 100%. Per the baseline rule for tools with no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify.

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 ('Get') and precise resource ('statistics on deprecated API usage'), and further clarifies what is included: 'which deprecation warnings have been triggered and v2.0.0 preparation status.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling stats tools like cyberchef_cache_stats or cyberchef_worker_stats, which focus on different domains.

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 gives a clear context: use it when you need deprecation statistics or v2.0.0 preparation status in the current session. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the specificity of the scope ('current session', 'deprecated API usage') makes the intended use obvious.

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