trace

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns both the direct path and all edges (including branches), limits hops to 6, and returns 'No path found' if not connected. This is comprehensive and goes beyond what annotations would provide.

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 front-loaded, stating the purpose first. Additional sentences add necessary details about output and limitations without redundancy.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (path, edges, branches) and the no-path case. It covers the essential behavioral aspects, though might benefit from mentioning the significance of 'branches' more.

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 has 100% coverage for both parameters ('from_id' and 'to_id'). The description does not add significant detail beyond the schema's descriptions, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 chain of relationships between two concepts by node ID, specifies the return format (ordered path and all edges including branches), and notes the hop limit. This is a specific verb and resource, and differs from sibling tools like 'connect' or 'search'.

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 is for tracing connections between two specific nodes, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'connect', 'disconnect', 'search', or 'suggest_connections'. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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