shortest_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: only abusable edges are considered by default, and the include_structural flag changes this. This adds meaningful context beyond what a naive description would provide, though it does not discuss edge cases or prerequisites.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every phrase adds value: the node specification, the default edge filter, and the optional flag. No filler or redundant repetition of schema titles.

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 tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It covers the main functional distinction (abusable vs structural edges) and the input format for nodes. It does not elaborate on return values (covered by output schema) or limitations, but this is acceptable for a path-finding 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that source and target are specified 'by name/objectid', and explains the include_structural flag's meaning. However, it does not mention the max_hops parameter or its default, leaving part of the parameter semantics to the schema alone.

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 'Shortest attack path between two nodes', specifying the verb 'finds' (implied) and the resource (attack path), with a specific scope of 'between two nodes'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like paths_to_tier0 or blast_radius, which target different node sets.

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 gives clear context: it is for finding the shortest path between two specified nodes, and explains the default 'abusable edges' behavior with an option to include structural edges. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, though it is implied by the phrase 'between two nodes'.

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