graph_count_components_by_space_tool

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

There are no annotations describing side effects, and the description does not mention whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or performs any other behavior. Since the description carries the full burden in the absence of annotations, the lack of any behavioral detail leaves significant ambiguity. The tool name hints at a count operation, but no explicit transparency is provided.

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, consisting of a single sentence with no unnecessary words or filler. It is front-loaded with the most relevant information: the deprecated status and the alias target. This is an appropriate length for a simple alias tool.

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?

The description lacks any mention of return values, output format, or parameter details, and the output schema is not provided in the presented definition. As a deprecated alias, it relies entirely on the referenced tool, but the description does not give sufficient context for an agent to understand the complete behavior. The tool is simple, yet missing return and parameter guidance leaves notable gaps.

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 provides no descriptions for the required parameters project_id and space_name, and the tool description does not explain them. Although the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the complete absence of schema-level documentation. The agent receives minimal semantic guidance beyond the field names.

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 states it is a deprecated alias for graph_count_components_by_space, which clearly indicates the intended function by referencing another tool, but it does not explicitly describe what the tool does in its own words. The tool name itself conveys the counting operation, adding some clarity. Overall, the purpose is inferable but not directly stated.

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 explicitly marks the tool as deprecated and points to the preferred alternative, graph_count_components_by_space. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tool: essentially, the agent should use the non-deprecated version instead. This fully satisfies the usage guidance criterion.

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