path_hipocampo

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It provides useful limits (max_depth default/max) and return format, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens when no path exists, or any side effects. It offers some behavioral context but has gaps.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, then parameter definitions, then return statement. No wasted words.

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?

While the description covers purpose, parameters, and return value (and an output schema exists), it leaves important behavior unstated, such as behavior when no path is found, whether max_depth is inclusive, and whether the graph is weighted. For a pathfinding tool, these are significant gaps.

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 provides only types and titles with zero description coverage. The description compensates fully by defining each parameter: from_id (origin memory), to_id (destination memory), and max_depth with default and max. This adds essential semantic meaning beyond the 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 tool finds the shortest path between two memories in the memory graph, naming the specific resource and operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling search tools, so it misses the top score.

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 the tool should be used when a shortest path between two memory nodes is needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like search_hipocampo or graph_hipocampo.

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