search_paths

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

No annotations are provided and the description gives zero behavioral information. There is no mention of side effects, required permissions, result semantics, or limitations. The tool is a black box.

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 concise, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A single two-word phrase does not structure information for an agent; it provides no front-loaded details or useful 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 (24 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), this description is woefully incomplete. An agent cannot infer how to correctly invoke this tool or interpret results. It needs a full rewrite.

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 24 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters but offers nothing. The parameter names like 'edge_id', 'node_id', 'statuses', 'max_steps' are ambiguous without context, and the description does not clarify their roles.

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 is 'search paths' which simply restates the tool name without a verb or resource. It does not explain what the tool does—whether it searches for paths between nodes, lists paths, etc. It fails to distinguish from siblings like find_paths or traverse_graph.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_paths or search_nodes. The description provides no context about typical use cases or conditions that would route an agent here.

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