find_entity_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 states the tool finds the shortest path, indicating a read operation, but it does not disclose behavioral traits like what happens if no path exists, performance constraints, or the return format.

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 three sentences, each adding value: purpose, explanation, and use case. It is front-loaded with the core action and has no redundant information.

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 description explains purpose and typical use, but it lacks details on output format, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., entity existence). Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, more context would be helpful.

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%, and the description mentions entity1 and entity2 in context but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., source/target entity names). With high coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it further.

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 finds the shortest path between two entities in a knowledge graph, showing connections through intermediate relationships. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'find_related_entities' or 'get_entity_relationships'.

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 says it's 'useful for understanding conceptual connections and knowledge pathways,' which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly specify when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives such as 'find_related_entities', 'get_entity_relationships', or 'search_entity_pair'.

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