graph_list_spaces_by_floor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, read-only nature, permissions, error conditions, or any other behavioral details beyond the basic listing action.

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 front-loads the primary action and resource. No 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 minimal and does not provide enough context for correct usage. With four parameters and no parameter explanations, plus no usage guidance, the description is incomplete even though an output schema is present.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameters. 'floor_name' is hinted by 'filtered by floor', but 'q', 'limit', and especially the required 'project_id' are completely undefined, leaving the agent without needed meaning.

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 action ('List spaces'), the resource ('from the canonical project graph'), and the optional filter ('by floor'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_spaces' (non-graph) and 'graph_list_floors' (floors, not spaces).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_spaces' or other graph listing tools. No mention of preferred scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer 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.