get_reference_path

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the BFS direction semantics, that dependency_type filters BOTH walks plus the always-computed direct_referencers list, and the full return shape. It stops just short of exhaustiveness (no rate/depth-failure caveats).

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the two modes, then a compact Returns block. Dense but each sentence earns its place; the Returns enumeration is slightly heavy but necessary given there is no output schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by enumerating the return fields (target, chain, found, reached_root, etc.). Combined with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: it explains what `from` selects (dependency walk vs referencer-root walk) and how dependency_type interacts with both directions and direct_referencers. This is genuine semantic value over the structured fields.

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 verb+resource (find the shortest reference chain through the AssetRegistry dependency graph) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_asset_referencers ('gives the direct edges; this gives the PATH'). An agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance for both modes: with `from` walks dependencies from->target; without `from` walks referencers to a root, framed as 'what keeps target alive / why is it undeletable'. It also names the alternative tool and the condition that selects against it.

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