cross_boundary_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 does convey that this is a list-like, read-oriented operation and adds behavioral detail around boundary tags, rarity ranking, direction, and confidence preservation. However, it does not describe edge cases, ordering semantics, occurrence of no crossings, or interaction with pagination.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with minimal wasted words. It states the primary action, the scope, and the distinguishing result qualities without restating schema details.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description still lacks enough context about result structure, pagination behavior, and the meaning of 'boundary' and 'rarity.' An agent may be able to invoke the tool based on the clear from/to naming, but the broader execution context is not fully specified.

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 20%, so the description needs to compensate by explaining parameters. It implicitly covers direction and from/to component, but it gives no specific meaning for limit, offset, or format. The description adds less value than the parameter names and the one enum description already provide.

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 a concrete verb and resource: 'List crossings between two components.' It further defines what kind of result is returned: boundary tags, rarity ranking, direction, and confidence. This makes the tool's purpose reasonably distinct from a bare 'crossings' name, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools.

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?

'Between two components' gives clear usage context and maps naturally to the required from_component and to_component parameters. The description does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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