graph_list_components_by_space_tool

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

The description provides no information about the tool's behavior, side effects, return values, or operational characteristics. There are no annotations to supplement this, so the agent has zero transparency into what happens when the tool is invoked. The alias relationship implies identical behavior to the target, but that is not disclosed in the description.

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 brief sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently communicates the core fact (deprecated alias) and the target tool. This is perfectly concise, though it sacrifices substance for brevity.

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?

For a deprecated alias, the description fully covers the deprecation status and the replacement. However, it omits any functional context, leaving the agent to infer what the tool actually does from its name or the target tool. This is a moderate gap given that the tool might still be invoked despite deprecation.

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 offers no explanation of the input parameters (q, limit, project_id, space_name). The schema provides types and defaults but no semantic meaning or context. Since the description is just a deprecation note, it adds no value to understanding the parameters' purpose or relationships.

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 'Deprecated alias for graph_list_components_by_space' without describing what the tool does. It does not provide a verb indicating the action or resource, relying instead on the alias target's name for any functional meaning. This is vague and insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's 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 identifies the tool as a deprecated alias and names the replacement tool (graph_list_components_by_space). This clearly signals to the agent to use the non-deprecated alternative, providing direct usage guidance. However, it does not elaborate on specific conditions or scenarios beyond the deprecation.

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