What's deprecated

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output contents (deprecated items, migration targets, dependency counts) but does not mention potential performance implications of scanning 'every' deprecated item, what 'active entities' means, or any limitations. It provides basic transparency but lacks deeper behavioral details.

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 extremely concise, just two short sentences. The rhetorical question front-loads the purpose, and the subsequent sentence packs all key information without wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema present), the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns and when it might be relevant. It doesn't explain how its output relates to sibling tools like check_token_drift, but that is a minor gap given the clear purpose and existing structured context.

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, so the schema covers everything. The description adds no parameter semantics, but with 0 params the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is nothing to compensate for.

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 what it does: 'Lists every deprecated token and component, its migration target, and how many active entities still depend on it.' This specifically distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tokens or list_components, which list all items, not just deprecated ones.

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 opening question 'What should I stop using?' implies a use case, but the description does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., use this instead of list_tokens when you only care about deprecated items). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, so usage is only implied.

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