graph_list_components_by_space

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

The word 'List' implies a read-only operation with no destructive side effects. However, with no annotations present, the description does not explicitly disclose whether the operation is non-mutating, whether it has any side effects, or whether any authentication or rate limits apply.

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 or extraneous content. It front-loads the core action and object clearly.

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 sparse to be fully self-contained. It omits any explanation of the 'q' and 'limit' parameters, does not describe the output or return shape, and provides no context about how this listing relates to the graph model or other component-oriented tools.

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 description only mentions the general notion of a space and does not explain the 'q' parameter or the 'limit' parameter. 'project_id' and 'space_name' are reasonably inferable from their names, but 'q' is ambiguous and the meaning of 'limit' as a maximum result count is not stated.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'components located in a space from the canonical project graph.' It is specific about the operation and scope, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as graph_count_components_by_space or graph_find_component_by_name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like counting components, finding a component by name, or looking up a component location. There is no mention of intended use cases or exclusions.

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