graph_list_spaces_by_floor_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that the tool is a deprecated alias and gives no information about read-only status, side effects, errors, or rate limits. The name implies listing, but that is not explicit behavioral transparency.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It directly communicates the most important fact about the tool: it is a deprecated alias for another tool.

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 the essential alias context and the output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. However, it omits any explanation of parameters or invocation nuances, making it only minimally complete for an agent trying to call 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?

The schema has four parameters with zero descriptions, and the description does not compensate by explaining any of them. Parameters like 'q' are ambiguous, and there is no guidance on how project_id, floor_name, or limit should be 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 clearly identifies the tool as a deprecated alias for graph_list_spaces_by_floor, which conveys its intended function by pointing to the canonical tool. It does not restate the full behavior, but the alias relationship is specific and distinguishes it from the non-deprecated sibling.

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 'deprecated alias' phrasing provides practical guidance: agents should prefer graph_list_spaces_by_floor instead of this tool. This is not as explicit as a direct 'use X instead' instruction, but it is sufficient for selecting the correct alternative.

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