trace

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

The description discloses return values (path, edges) with detail about including branches, and explicitly mentions the 'No path found' case and the 6-hop limit. Lacks statements on idempotency or read-only nature, but this is reasonable for a pathfinding tool.

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 moderately concise, front-loading the core purpose and then providing detailed behavioral info. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more compact without losing essential details.

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 the complexity of pathfinding and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers return fields, edge cases, and hop limit. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it lacks usage guidance and output format specifics.

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% description coverage for both parameters. The description restates the parameter purpose ('starting memory', 'destination memory') without adding additional constraints, format, or examples 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's purpose: finding the shortest chain of relationships connecting two concepts by memory ID. It specifies the return fields (path, edges) and distinguishes from potential siblings like why_connected by focusing on the chain and branches.

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 for pathfinding between memories but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like why_connected or orient. No when-not 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.