graph_get_component_details_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 such as read-only status, side effects, errors, or output characteristics. The description carries the full burden and fails to disclose any 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 a single sentence with no unnecessary wording. The deprecation status is front-loaded and the alias target is clearly named.

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 is only a deprecation notice and does not explain the actual operation, parameters, output, or appropriate usage context. It is not sufficient for an agent to understand or safely invoke the tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. 'project_id' and 'component_name' are only nominally self-explanatory; no format, constraints, or relationship to the operation is provided.

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 identifies the tool as a 'deprecated alias' for graph_get_component_details, but it never states what the underlying operation actually does. An agent must resolve the target tool to understand the 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 deprecation warning and 'alias' wording imply that the canonical tool should be preferred, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or direct the agent to the replacement.

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