graph_find_component_by_name

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

With no annotations and only a brief description, the tool's behavior is underspecified. It does not mention case sensitivity, substring matching, result ordering, limit semantics, or what happens when no components match.

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 that conveys the essential action and target without unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 too brief for a search tool with no annotation support. It omits matching behavior, result shape, limit behavior, and relationship to sibling search and detail tools, leaving an agent to guess important execution details.

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 includes only types, required flags, and a default for limit; no parameter descriptions are provided. The description mentions 'name' and 'project graph' but does not clarify whether name is a partial match or exact identifier, nor does it explain limit or project_id semantics.

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 action (find) and resource (components by name) within the canonical project graph, distinguishing it from general listing or detail tools. It does not specify whether matching is exact or partial, but the core purpose is understandable.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus closely related siblings such as semantic_search_project, graph_get_component_details, or graph_find_component_by_name_tool. The description does not help an agent choose among search-like alternatives.

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