Metis — KG Paths

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

Discloses the algorithm (BFS), the max_hops parameter, and that results are ranked by length. With no annotations, this provides useful behavioral context. It does not mention performance characteristics or what happens when no path exists, but the core behavior is clear.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus parameter list. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 an output schema exists (though not detailed), the description adequately covers input parameters and behavior. It mentions the returned result (paths ranked by length). Minor gaps: no mention of error handling or path format, but sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The description fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage by explaining each parameter: from_path includes an example relative path, to_path is described concisely, and max_hops states its default and purpose. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

Clearly states the tool finds connection paths between two knowledge library notes using BFS. The verb 'find' and resource 'connection paths' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'find_connections' or 'kg_memory_connections', which could cause confusion.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_library' or 'find_connections'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent without decision support.

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