find_path

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Uses undirected BFS — traverses both outgoing and incoming edges.' This is non-obvious and directly affects results. With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and this detail plus the return description provides meaningful transparency, though it doesn't mention edge cases like no-path scenarios.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose, algorithm, usage, parameters, and return value. It is front-loaded with the main verb and every sentence contributes information. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The description covers the purpose, algorithm, parameters, and return format. Since an output schema exists, not detailing the return structure is acceptable. However, it omits behavior when no path is found and under-explains the project param, leaving minor gaps.

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 lists each parameter with some meaning: source_id as 'Starting node ID', target_id as 'Destination node ID', max_depth with default and max, and project as 'Project name'. The project description is minimal but present, giving some semantics beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states 'Find the shortest path between two nodes in the knowledge graph', specifying the verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like find_impact, but the purpose is specific enough that it likely won't be confused with other 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?

The line 'Useful for understanding how two components are connected' provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not mention explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for basic guidance.

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