arango_shortest_path

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool returns just the distance, the full path, or both (though the 'return_paths' parameter hints at it). It also fails to mention algorithm type, performance characteristics, or requirements like graph existence.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but overly brief. It front-loads the core purpose but omits necessary details, making it under-specified rather than efficiently structured.

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 7 parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., graph must exist), or the expected behavior when both graph and edge_collections are null.

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 only 14% (only 'database' has a description). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, stating 'by graph or edge collections' but not clarifying the mutual exclusivity or required conditions for these parameters. Parameters like 'direction' and 'return_paths' lack additional context.

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 computes shortest paths between two vertices. It mentions two modes (graph or edge collections), which hints at flexibility. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like arango_graph_traversal or arango_traverse that also handle path computations.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., arango_graph_traversal). The description lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, and no prerequisites or context are given.

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