rca_graph_score_paths

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing safety. The description adds the scoring formula and return format but does not disclose how root nodes are determined or any limitations. Contradictions are absent.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, one for formula, and two lines for Args/Returns. No unnecessary words. The formula is a valuable addition.

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?

Despite complexity (causal path ranking with a formula), the description omits prerequisites (e.g., graph must exist, node validity), the structure of ScoredPath return objects, and does not compensate for the lack of output schema details. Incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage per the context, and the tool description only lists the parameter names without adding meaning beyond the schema. The schema itself provides descriptions for top_k and target_node, so the description adds negligible value.

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 and ranks causal paths from root nodes to a target incident node, with a specific scoring formula. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rca_graph_score (general scoring) and rca_graph_discover (discovery).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rca_analysis_explain or rca_analysis_query_results. Usage is implied but not clarified, leaving the agent to infer.

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