graph_count_components_by_space

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

There are no annotations describing side effects, and the description does not explicitly state whether this tool is read-only or if it modifies the graph. Since counting is likely non-destructive, that should be stated for clarity.

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 redundant information. It is well-structured and immediately readable.

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 is adequate for a simple counting operation, but it does not mention the return format or whether it returns a single integer or a structured result. The existence of an output schema is noted, but its contents are not summarized.

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 provides only parameter names with no descriptions. The description gives minimal context that project_id and space_name relate to the project graph and space, but it does not explain their expected formats, meanings, or constraints.

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 states the action ('Count'), the object ('components'), and the scope ('located in a space from the canonical project graph'). It is easy for an agent to understand what this tool does.

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 does not explain when to use this tool instead of closely related siblings such as graph_list_components_by_space or graph_count_spaces_by_floor. It gives no conditions for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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