graph_list_floors

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or performance implications. Since it is a listing operation it is likely safe, but that is not explicitly stated.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no filler or redundant information. It efficiently conveys the core action and target resource.

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?

Given the large number of sibling tools and the presence of an output schema, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain what the output contains, how it relates to similar tools, or any edge cases. The agent lacks essential context for correct usage.

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 three parameters (project_id, q, limit), but the description provides no explanation of their meaning or usage. The schema itself has no descriptions or enums, so the agent has no semantic understanding of 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 clearly states a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('floors from the canonical project graph'). It distinguishes the source of the data, which helps set it apart from potential sibling tools that may list floors from other sources, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., 'list_floors', 'graph_list_floors_tool', 'graph_list_spaces_by_floor'). No conditions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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