graph_graph_path

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates read-like behavior and return format, but lacks details on preconditions, error handling (e.g., if no path exists), or side effects. The return field 'reachable' hints at behavior, but insufficient.

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 very short and direct, with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and mentions return format. While minimal, it is not 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?

Given the tool has 3 required params, no annotations, and an output schema (implied by return description), the description is incomplete. It does not explain graph context, node identifiers, or error scenarios. Users may need additional knowledge.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond their names. No guidance on valid node identifiers or graph naming conventions. The schema fields are self-explanatory but lack additional context.

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 it finds the shortest path from src to dst and specifies the return fields. It distinguishes from sibling graph tools like cycle detection or topological sort.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other graph tools, nor any prerequisites (e.g., graph must exist, nodes must be present). The context does not provide when-not or alternative tools.

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