check_deprecated

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'flags' deprecated calls but does not specify whether it modifies code, what output format is expected, or if it requires specific permissions. For a read-only analysis tool, this omission is significant.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words, achieving high conciseness. However, it sacrifices clarity for brevity; a slightly longer description (e.g., specifying the source parameter and output) would improve informativeness without losing conciseness.

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 low schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, error handling, or behavior when no deprecated calls are found. A more complete description would cover these aspects to guide the agent's invocation.

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 sole parameter 'source' has no schema description (0% coverage), and the tool description does not clarify whether it expects a file path, code snippet, or string. The purpose implies MQL5 source code, but this is not explicit, leaving the agent to guess the expected input format.

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 'Flag' and identifies the resource as 'MT4-style deprecated API calls in MT5 source', clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling lint tools by focusing on deprecated MT4-style calls, though it could explicitly contrast with other code analysis tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like syntax_check or lint_basic. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context.

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