path_between

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It names an internal algorithm ('algo.SPpaths') but doesn't disclose return shape, what 'weighted' means, whether the search needs a tenant context, or performance/limit behavior. Only the implicit read-only nature of 'path between' is conveyed.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The parenthetical algorithm reference is the only slightly expendable token.

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?

For a pathfinding query with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain at least the return concept and the tenant parameter. It leaves the agent without enough to call the tool confidently on anything but the simplest two-arg case.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It clarifies that the two endpoints (a, b) are people or modules, which adds real meaning, but the third parameter 'tenant' is never mentioned and no input format or typing guidance is given for any parameter.

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?

States a specific computed resource ('weighted shortest chain of shared knowledge') and its domain (two people, or a person and a module), which is more than a tautology. It doesn't explicitly contrast with path/knowledge siblings such as who_knows, knowledge_map, or successors, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 phrase "Use for 'how is X connected to Y'" gives an implied usage context, which is better than nothing. However there are no when-not conditions, no prerequisite guidance, and no routing versus the many connectivity-oriented siblings.

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