lookup_component_location

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

There are no annotations and the description does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires any special permissions, or what side effects might occur. 'Resolve' implies a non-mutating lookup, but this is not explicit, and no error or edge-case behavior is mentioned.

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 concise and front-loaded, using one clear sentence. It avoids unnecessary detail, though it could benefit from a brief note about the optional parameters without becoming verbose.

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 complete. It does not explain the return format, how the optional parameters affect the lookup, what happens when a component is not found, or how this tool differs from the many similarly named siblings. The presence of an output schema is not enough to compensate for the lack of contextual guidance.

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?

None of the four parameters are described in the schema or the description. While component_name is inferable from the tool name, excel_path, project_id, and import_version_id have no explanation of their roles, relationships, or when they are needed. The schema provides only titles and types, so users cannot confidently determine correct values.

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: to resolve a component's assigned Space and Floor. The verb 'Resolve' and the object 'Component's assigned Space and Floor' are specific, and the phrase 'without LLM routing' helps distinguish it from semantic or LLM-based lookup tools.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools like graph_get_component_location, lookup_component_location_tool, or graph_find_component_by_name. It only says 'without LLM routing,' which is not enough to disambiguate among the numerous location/component lookup tools.

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