find_paths

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful traits — undirected traversal and shortest-first ordering — but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether it can be expensive, or what happens when no path exists. The schema's truncation note on max_paths partially helps but does not replace overall behavioral disclosure.

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 three compact lines with the core purpose and constraints front-loaded. Every clause adds value: what it enumerates, graph direction, ordering, and the relationship to path_to. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

An output schema exists and three of five parameters are already documented in the input schema, so the description can stay focused on purpose and selection. It is nearly complete for an agent to call the tool correctly, but the lack of explicit side-effect/performance/no-path behavior and thin source/target semantics keep it short of a 5.

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 already describes max_paths, max_length, and edge_filter, and the description's 'source→target' phrase adds endpoint roles for the two otherwise undocumented required parameters. However, it does not clarify node ID formats or how edge_filter integrates with path selection, and at 60% schema description coverage the description only partially compensates.

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 opens with 'source→target 실제 경로 열거 (무방향, 최단 우선)', a specific verb plus resource with clear constraints: enumerating actual paths from source to target, undirected, shortest-first. It also distinguishes itself from path_to by calling itself its successor, which prevents confusion with the reachability-only tool.

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 gives clear selection context: 'path_to 의 후속' and 'path_to 는 "도달 가능?"(bool)만 답한다 — 실제 경로는 여기서 준다' tell an agent to use this tool when actual paths are needed instead of a boolean reachability answer. It does not, however, spell out when-not conditions or alternatives beyond path_to, and path_to is not present in the sibling list.

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