graph_get_component_location

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral details such as whether the operation is read-only, what it does if the component is not found, or what the resolved location format will be. The description is too minimal to fully inform an agent about side effects or failure behavior.

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 front-loads the primary action and object, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 graph lookup but lacks surrounding context such as whether the result includes floor and space names, how it relates to the canonical graph, or when it should be preferred over similar lookup tools. The output schema is indicated as present but not shown, so some return-format ambiguity remains.

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 provides no descriptions for project_id or component_name, and the description only indirectly references component location without explaining the expected values or format for these parameters. With zero schema coverage, the description needed to compensate but did not.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Resolve') and object ('component location'), and indicates the source is the canonical project graph. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling lookup tools, but the phrasing already conveys the main function.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus related sibling tools such as lookup_component_location_tool or graph_find_component_by_name_tool. It only describes what the tool does, not the conditions that make it the appropriate choice.

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