find_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool uses supplier, customer, and competitor relationships and returns the shortest path via an example. However, it does not specify what happens if no path exists, if multiple paths exist, or performance implications. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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: two sentences and an example. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and the example adds concrete understanding without extraneous content. Every sentence is useful and earn its place.

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, moderate complexity, and simple parameters, the description covers the core functionality and relationships. However, it lacks details on output format, error handling, and assumptions (e.g., case sensitivity). It is adequate for a basic agent but incomplete for reliable autonomous invocation.

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 description does not formally define ticker_a and ticker_b beyond the example showing stock tickers. The example provides partial meaning, but lacks explicit format or constraint details. The description adds some value for interpretation but insufficiently compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 the tool finds the shortest path between two companies in a knowledge graph using supplier, customer, and competitor relationships. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_competitors (direct competitors) or get_supply_chain (full chain), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 provides context ('Great for finding hidden connections') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The example illustrates a use case, aiding inference, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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