trace

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool returns both the ordered path and all edges (including branches), suggests synthesizing into a narrative, and states the 6-hop limit. Missing details on side effects, but the tool appears read-only.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. The second sentence adds important nuance about branches and narrative synthesis, earning its place. Could be slightly tighter.

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?

For a path-finding tool with no output schema, the description fully explains return structure (path, edges, possible 'No path found') and constraints (6 hops). It covers the expected behavior comprehensively.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters ('ID of the starting node' and 'ID of the destination node'). The description adds 'by node ID' but no extra 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 it finds the shortest chain of relationships connecting two concepts by node ID, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'why_connected' or 'suggest_connections' by focusing on shortest path.

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 usage when a relationship chain between two nodes is needed, mentioning the 6-hop limit and the 'No path found' case. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives but is clear enough for selection.

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