find_connection

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating it returns exactly one path and a structured not-connected result. However, it does not disclose behavior around max_depth, multiple equally short paths, or how connection is determined.

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 one focused sentence that front-loads the core behavior. Every word contributes meaning, and it avoids redundancy with the input 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?

The tool is relatively simple, has a readOnly annotation, and has an output schema that likely documents the return shape. Still, the complete absence of parameter semantics and usage guidance leaves gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it, especially around max_depth.

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 must compensate for parameter meaning. It does not explain that person_a and person_b identify the people to connect, nor does it clarify how max_depth controls the search. The agent is left relying only on parameter names and titles.

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: return one shortest relationship path. The 'or a structured not-connected result' clarifies the fallback behavior. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling get_relationship_graph, though 'one shortest path' provides some 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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_relationship_graph or search_people. There is no mention of when a single shortest path is preferable, nor any exclusions or alternative tool references.

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