find_paths_between_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral qualifier that paths are directed and confined to one AOP, but says nothing about traversal truncation, depth limits, or result exhaustion.

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?

A single 13-word sentence with the scope qualifier front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing is the meaning of max_depth and limit and any hint about path-count behavior, which matters for a traversal tool with five parameters.

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 all five parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description clarifies the three required IDs implicitly but leaves limit (default 10, max 50) and max_depth (default 8, max 20) completely unexplained, and these are the non-obvious knobs for a graph traversal.

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?

States a specific verb (find), resource (directed KE/KER paths), and endpoints (between two events) scoped to a single AOP. It is distinguishable from read-oriented siblings like get_ker and list_kers, though it never names an alternative tool 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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the path-traversal option among siblings such as list_kers and get_ker.

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