find_symbol_path

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the algorithm (weighted Dijkstra with specific weights), that it can cross service boundaries via org graph, auto-detection of repos, and the return format (path, hops, etc.). This is comprehensive and transparent.

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 well-structured with a summary paragraph then parameter bullet points. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value (algorithm details, return format). A minor improvement would be to trim the algorithm weight explanation, but it is still efficient.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers all necessary information: purpose, algorithm, parameter behavior, return structure, and error handling. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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%, so the description must add meaning for all parameters. It explains that from_symbol and to_symbol are source/destination names, and from_repo/to_repo are absolute paths or auto-detected. This adds crucial context beyond the schema's type/title only.

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 call-graph path between two symbols, crossing service boundaries when needed. It uses a specific verb 'find' and resource 'call-graph path', and distinguishes from siblings like 'lookup_symbol' or 'who_calls' which do not find paths but rather look up symbols or callers.

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 implies when to use: when you need the shortest path, possibly crossing services. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the algorithm description (weighted Dijkstra) and mention of crossing service boundaries give context for appropriate use. Sibling tools are available but not contrasted.

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