trace

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions outputting 'each hop with tier transitions', but does not specify whether the tool is read-only, has performance implications, or any limitations. The minimal information leaves significant gaps.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose and behavior. It is concise, though it could benefit from a slight restructure to separate purpose from behavior. No waste.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values, but it lacks any context about when to use the tool, prerequisites, or relationship to siblings. The description is too minimal for a graph pathfinding tool among several similar tools.

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% with descriptions for both parameters ('Starting node name or qname pattern.' and 'Target node name or qname pattern.'). The description adds no extra information beyond confirming these are the two nodes for the path. Therefore, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 computes the shortest path between two nodes and shows hops with tier transitions, which distinguishes it from siblings like 'neighbours' (direct connections) and 'find' (general search). However, it uses a noun phrase 'Shortest path' rather than an active verb, slightly reducing clarity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'flow' or 'graph_view'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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