jambavan_graph_path

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the use of BFS over 'extracted and inferred edges', indicating how the graph is built. It also implies dependence on prior indexing. Missing details on error handling or return format, but core behavior is 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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and algorithm, the second adds a prerequisite. No wasted words; every sentence 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 no output schema, so description could explain return format, but it does not. It covers operation and prerequisite, but lacks details like path representation, error behavior, or default for symbol_limit (though schema covers defaults). Complete enough for basic use, but gaps exist.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'from', 'to', 'symbol_limit' are well-described in schema).

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 verb 'Find', the resource 'shortest path between two graph nodes/symbols', and the algorithm 'BFS over extracted and inferred edges'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like jambavan_graph_query by specifying pathfinding. Additionally, it notes a prerequisite, adding specific purpose context.

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 explicitly advises to 'Call jambavan_index first', providing a clear usage guideline. However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or alternative tools, though the purpose implies pathfinding context.

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