graph_get_component_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions the source ('canonical project graph') but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the component is not found, or any prerequisites. This is a minimal disclosure for a graph query tool.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is concise without waste, though it may be too brief given the tool's complexity. Structure is good, but brevity leaves gaps in other dimensions.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description lacks essential context for an agent: no usage conditions, no differentiation from similar siblings, and no mention of error scenarios. Given the large sibling set and zero annotation coverage, the description is inadequate for correct selection and invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. The description mentions 'component details' and 'type/location' but does not explicitly explain what project_id and component_name mean beyond their self-explanatory names. It fails to add meaningful semantics to the parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('component details and related type/location'), clearly identifying the tool's function. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the focus on 'details' and 'type/location' distinguishes it from location-only tools like graph_get_component_location. It is clear but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus the many siblings, such as graph_get_component_location or graph_get_type_components. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name alone.

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