rlm_code_shortest_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention what a 'structural path' entails, the algorithm used (e.g., BFS), potential performance implications, or the format of the output. The description is too minimal to inform an agent about rate limits, side effects, or error conditions.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. While very concise, it could include more detail without becoming verbose. However, its brevity does not harm clarity for the core task.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of symbols or edges) and how to use optional parameters. It does not mention output format, error conditions, or how to handle ambiguous symbol names. The description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional schema inspection.

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 nearly 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters like 'from', 'to', 'edge_kinds', and 'max_hops'. It does not clarify distinctions like the relationship between 'from' and 'from_symbol_key'.

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 purpose: finding the shortest structural path between two code symbols. It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('structural path'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rlm_code_callers or rlm_code_imports by focusing on multi-hop paths rather than direct relationships.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention criteria for choosing this over direct-relationship tools, nor does it specify prerequisites such as requiring repository-qualified symbol names. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name and the sibling list.

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