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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the traversal semantics ('through calls / references / accesses') and implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Find'. However, it does not disclose details such as the exact return format, behavior when no path exists, or any limitations like depth or cycle handling. This is partial transparency, warranting a 3.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and clarifies the relationship types. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and edge cases. It explains the purpose and traversal edge types but does not specify what the output looks like (e.g., a list of nodes, a distance) or behavior when no path exists. This is a noticeable gap, making the description adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for 'from' and 'to' as 'Start object name' and 'Destination object name' with 100% coverage. The description's phrase 'how A reaches B' reinforces the directional meaning (A=from, B=to) and adds context that the path traverses specific edge types, but it does not add parameter-specific details like case sensitivity or name format. Thus it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 function: 'Find the shortest path between two objects in the Ross ERP 8.0 knowledge graph.' It specifies the verb (find), the resource (knowledge graph), and the scope (shortest path between two objects). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like graph_neighbors, which likely return direct connections rather than full paths.

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 clear context: it is for finding how one object reaches another through calls, references, or accesses. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the phrasing 'how A reaches B' implies a pathfinding scenario, distinguishing it from neighbor-query or search tools. No exclusions are stated, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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