graph_find_component_by_name_tool

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

No annotations are present and the description provides no behavioral information beyond noting it is a deprecated alias. It does not disclose side effects, safety, read-only nature, or any return behavior.

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 not verbose, but it omits essential content. It is structurally simple and front-loaded with the deprecation notice, yet the minimalism harms usefulness.

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 that this is a deprecated alias, the description lacks necessary context about the canonical tool's behavior, output, parameter meanings, and why an agent should or should not use this alias. No output schema or further guidance is provided.

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 no descriptions for project_id, name, or limit, and the description adds no meaning to these parameters. The agent cannot infer what values are expected or how limit affects results.

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 only says 'Deprecated alias for graph_find_component_by_name' and does not state what the tool actually does, such as finding a component by name in a graph. It relies entirely on the referenced canonical tool name for meaning, so the purpose is not directly clarified.

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 indicates deprecation and points to another tool name, but it does not explicitly tell the agent when to use this alias versus the canonical sibling graph_find_component_by_name or other graph lookup tools. No usage conditions or alternatives are described.

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