audit_deprecated_modules

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool detects and suggests replacements but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The simple action 'detect' suggests non-destructive behavior, but the description could be more explicit.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. Clearly states action, target, and outcome.

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 is clear for a zero-parameter tool, it omits details about the output format (e.g., list of modules, replacement suggestions). Given no output schema, the description should provide more context on what the tool returns.

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 has zero parameters, so the description naturally adds no parameter details. According to the rubric, zero parameters warrant a baseline of 4. The description does not need to elaborate further.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: detecting deprecated @nuxtjs/* modules in specific config files and suggesting replacements. It distinguishes itself from sibling audit tools by focusing on deprecated modules specifically.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like audit_api_migration or audit_async_data. While the mention of Nuxt 3/4 incompatibility implies migration context, it fails to differentiate or provide exclusions.

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