find_paths

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. The description only states 'find paths', with no disclosure of side effects, return format, cost, or any other behavioral characteristics. This is critically insufficient for a tool with likely read-only graph traversal behavior.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It provides no useful information, so it fails the 'every sentence should earn its place' test. A single vague phrase does not constitute good structure.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (15 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is wholly inadequate. Nothing about the graph context, expected inputs, outputs, or edge cases is covered. An agent using this description would have no understanding of how to correctly invoke or interpret the 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no explanatory text for any of the 15 parameters. The description does not compensate by mentioning any parameter names, types, or relationships. The agent has zero guidance on how to populate parameters like depth, direction, edge_types, or budgets.

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 'find paths' is essentially a tautology of the tool name, providing no information about what kind of paths, in what context, or for what purpose. It does not differentiate from similar tools like search_paths or traverse_graph, and offers no detail on the resource or scope of the operation.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_paths or traverse_graph. There is no mention of applicable scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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