shortest_path

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavior such as return value, side effects, or whether the graph is modified. The description only states the operation without any additional context.

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 single-sentence description is concise and free of redundant wording. However, it is so terse that it omits important details, though not to the point of being a mere tautology.

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 it is a graph algorithm with no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It does not specify the input graph format, output structure, or algorithmic limitations.

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 explain the parameters. 'Graph' is ambiguous (could be an ID or an inline object), while source/target are only self-evident by name. The description adds no value beyond the schema field names.

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 'Find shortest path between nodes' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly conveying the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like pagerank or connected_components, though it does not explicitly mention the graph dependency.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, nor does it compare with sibling tools like minimum_spanning_tree, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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