path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: direction is ignored, the result includes typed links, and a 'found' flag indicates reachability. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent essential execution details. However, it does not mention edge cases like missing nodes or performance characteristics, which are minor for a read-only path query.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence states purpose and behavior; the second explains the output flag and input sourcing. It is front-loaded and every word earns 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?

The tool has three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which covers return structure). The description explains the core logic and gives an input prerequisite, but omits the meaning of 'edge_types'. Given the output schema exists, the description need not detail return values, but the missing parameter explanation makes it incomplete. A 3 reflects adequate but not full coverage.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implicitly explains 'from_id' and 'to_id' via 'Get the ids from search' and 'between them,' but it does not explain the 'edge_types' parameter at all. The phrase 'with the typed links along it' describes the output, not the input filter. This leaves a significant gap for one of three parameters.

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's function: finding the shortest path between two nodes, ignoring direction, and returning typed links. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'neighbors' (direct connections) and 'get_graph' (whole graph) by specifying a path search. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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 a clear usage hint: 'Get the ids from search,' indicating a prerequisite for calling this tool. It implies when to use it (you need node ids) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'neighbors' or 'get_graph'. This is clear context without exclusions, warranting a 4.

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