graph_get_system_components_tool

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

There are no annotations, and the description only mentions deprecation. It does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as side effects, return behavior, or operational characteristics. The agent gets no transparency beyond the deprecation hint.

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 filler. It communicates the deprecation clearly, though it lacks substantive content. Structure is simple and appropriate for an alias.

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 context is minimal: the tool is only described as a deprecated alias. It lacks information about what the tool actually does, parameter semantics, and expected output. An agent could only infer behavior from the tool name and sibling context, which is insufficient.

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 description provides no information about parameters (project_id, system_name, limit). The schema has no parameter descriptions, so with 0% coverage the description does not compensate. Parameter meanings remain unclear.

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_get_system_components but does not explicitly describe what the tool does. The name 'graph_get_system_components_tool' is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description alone lacks a clear verb+resource statement.

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 names the canonical tool ('graph_get_system_components') and labels this as a deprecated alias, which clearly tells the agent to use the canonical tool instead. This provides appropriate guidance on when (not) to use this tool.

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