kg_paths

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 discloses the BFS algorithm and default max_hops, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not discuss performance, side effects, or failure modes (e.g., no path found). Adequate but not comprehensive.

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: one sentence for purpose, then 'Args' section. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers the core functionality (BFS, path ranking, max_hops). Missing details on error handling or edge cases, but sufficient for typical use.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides an explicit example for 'from_path' and states the format (relative path from knowledge/library/). It describes 'to_path' as target and 'max_hops' with default. Lacks example for 'to_path' and 'max_hops', but overall compensates well.

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 verb 'Find', the resource 'connection paths between two knowledge library notes', and the algorithm 'BFS'. It specifies the output behavior (return all paths ranked by length). This distinguishes it from potential siblings like 'find_connections' or 'search_notes', though not explicitly.

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 implies usage for finding paths between two notes, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_connections' or 'search_notes'. No usage exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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