explain_link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the traversal semantics (shortest path over citation/treatment edges), which is genuine added context, but says nothing about what happens when no path exists or how long a path may be.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core operation comes first and the rationale question follows. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 documentation is not required, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still, for a directed-graph path query, the omission of endpoint format and the disconnected/no-path case leaves meaningful gaps an agent would want before invoking it.

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 coverage is 0% and the two parameters are named only 'a' and 'b' with no titles or descriptions. The phrase 'between two decisions' implicitly identifies them as the two decision endpoints, which rescues some meaning, but it never states whether they are IDs, slugs, or handles, nor whether order matters.

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 names a specific operation and resource: the shortest citation/treatment path between two decisions, framed as an explanation of relatedness. That is far more informative than the bare name 'explain_link', though it never distinguishes itself from graph-touching siblings such as query_graph or find_overlaps.

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 trailing question 'why are they related?' implies the use case (explaining a suspected connection between two decisions), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to siblings like find_overlaps or query_graph for broader graph exploration. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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