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. It does disclose the key behavioural trait ('WITHOUT writing anything — a preview') and explains the unusual weight semantics (higher weight = shorter path, since weight is cost), which an agent cannot infer from the schema. It stops short of stating permissions or pagination/return shape.

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?

Front-loads the core action and the non-mutating guarantee, then adds the weight caveat and the routing hint. Three compact clauses that each carry information, with only slight density overhead in the weight explanation.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description must cover behaviour and result shape. It covers non-mutation and edge-weight semantics well, but omits what a path result contains and leaves the `initiative` parameter unexplained, so an agent has gaps for a 3-parameter 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 coverage is 67%: `from` and `to` are documented in the schema, but `initiative` has no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no format, id-vs-name guidance, or explanation of `initiative`), so it neither extends nor compensates for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 for mid coverage.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Compute the shortest weighted path between two nodes') and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling `chain` by stating it is a non-writing preview. An agent can distinguish it from neighbouring graph tools without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (`chain` saves the path as a recallable trail) and gives a selection condition: use `path` first 'when you are not sure the two are meaningfully connected.' Clear when-to-use guidance with one named alternative, though no explicit when-not-to-use case.

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