graph_count_spaces_by_floor_tool

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

The description discloses only that the tool is deprecated. It does not mention any behavioral traits such as read-only status, side effects, or that it behaves identically to the alias target. Minimal 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 short and concise, but it lacks essential information about the tool's functionality. While it is not verbose, the brevity comes at the expense of clarity and completeness.

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 provides almost no context. It does not explain what the tool does, when it should be used (other than deprecation), or how it relates to other tools. This is highly incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke it.

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 schema provides no descriptions for the parameters project_id and floor_name, and the description does not explain them. With zero schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the semantics completely undefined.

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 does not directly state what the tool does. It only says it is a deprecated alias for graph_count_spaces_by_floor, which implies the functionality but does not explicitly describe it as counting spaces by floor. This is insufficient for a clear purpose.

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 states that the tool is deprecated, which clearly signals that it should not be used. It also names the tool it aliases, implying that the non-deprecated alternative is graph_count_spaces_by_floor. This provides clear usage guidance.

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