graph_get_component_location_tool

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

The only disclosed behavioral trait is deprecation. No information about side effects, permissions, or that it likely behaves identically to the aliased tool is provided. Without annotations, this leaves much to inference.

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 to the point, with no unnecessary wording. However, the brevity comes at the cost of essential content, so it is concise but not well-rounded.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description still lacks critical context such as what the alias does, why it is deprecated, and which alternative to use. The output schema is also not explained, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 lists project_id and component_name with no descriptions, and the description adds no semantic meaning to these parameters. The agent receives no help understanding what values are expected or how they are used.

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 states that it is a deprecated alias for another tool, but it does not directly state what the tool does (e.g., retrieving component location). This is vague and relies on the user knowing the referenced tool.

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?

It implies the alternative by calling itself a deprecated alias, but it does not explicitly advise when to use it or when to prefer the non-deprecated tool. The guidance is minimal and inferential.

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