graph_list_floors_tool

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

No behavioral aspects are disclosed beyond deprecation. There is no mention of side effects, read-only nature, or any other runtime behavior, and no annotations are provided to fill this gap.

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 and is concise, which is appropriate for a deprecated alias. However, it lacks any structured detail about parameters or behavior, making it minimally informative.

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 provides almost no context: it does not explain what the underlying graph_list_floors tool does, nor does it cover parameters, return values, or proper usage. An agent would need to seek additional information elsewhere.

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 schema lists three parameters (q, limit, project_id) without any descriptions. The description adds no context about their meaning or usage, leaving the agent completely reliant on parameter names.

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_list_floors, but does not explicitly state what the tool does. The purpose is only inferable from the referenced tool's name, which suggests listing floors.

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 names graph_list_floors as the non-deprecated target, implying that agents should use that instead. However, it does not explicitly instruct when to use or avoid this tool, leaving the guidance implicit.

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