find_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the edge-weight semantics: a larger weight is a stronger connection, not a higher cost, and the shortest path tends toward strong connections. It also discloses that path and distance become None when ids are not in the atlas or when no real path exists, and it explicitly guarantees no approximation or invented path.

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 two dense sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. The parenthetical about weight semantics and the second sentence about None behavior are both essential and add real value; there is 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?

For a pathfinding tool, the description covers the main edge cases well: missing atlas membership, disconnected components, and no approximation. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values in detail. The main gap is min_weight, which is never described, leaving a meaningful parameter ambiguous.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does add meaning for connection_type by explaining the weight interpretation, but it says nothing about min_weight, which has a default of 0 and is not self-explanatory. atlas_id, source_id, and target_id are understandable from their names but their expected formats are not clarified.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Camino más corto real entre dos regiones del mismo atlas' — a real shortest path between two regions of the same atlas, over a specific connectivity graph. It also distinguishes itself by emphasizing 'real' vs approximate paths and by restricting to the same atlas, which helps separate it from sibling tools like find_homologues or get_connectivity.

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 implies when to use the tool: when an exact, non-approximate shortest path is needed between two regions of the same atlas. It also explains that path and distance return None when no path exists. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or says 'use X instead of Y', so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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