find_shortest_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the core function but doesn't explain what 'shortest path' means (e.g., by edge count, weight), whether it returns multiple paths if tied, performance characteristics, error conditions, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a path-finding operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'shortest path' (algorithm, metrics), what the output looks like (path sequence, distance), or behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of graph traversal and lack of structured metadata, more context is needed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., explaining how 'direction' affects path finding or how 'relationTypes' filtering works). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('find the shortest path') and resource ('between two entities in the knowledge graph'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_all_paths' or 'get_connected_components', which prevents a perfect 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_all_paths' or path-related siblings. It lacks context about prerequisites, constraints, or comparative use cases, offering only the basic functionality without usage direction.

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