find_paths

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond repeating the action ('find') and the bounded constraint, which is also reflected in the maxPaths parameter. It doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or any edge cases, but given the strong annotation coverage, the additional value is limited but not contradictory.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though it could potentially include a brief mention of return behavior without much added length. Still, it is appropriately sized for a tool with a well-documented schema.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description provides the essential purpose but omits what the return structure looks like (e.g., a list of paths with nodes/edges). The absence of an output schema places some burden on the description to describe the result format, which it does not do. However, the schema covers all input parameters, and the description is adequate for an agent to understand the primary use case without being fully complete.

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 all four parameters have descriptive text in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. For example, 'source' and 'target' are clearly described in the schema, and 'bounded' in the description is only a high-level echo of the maxPaths and edgeKinds parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the documentation burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('find'), a clear resource ('relationship paths'), and defines the scope ('between two OKF concepts'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_neighbors (which returns immediate connections) and get_subgraph (which returns a subgraph) by specifying the path-finding intent and bounded nature. The phrase 'bounded' signals limits, which is further detailed in the schema parameters.

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 when you need a path between two specific concepts, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_neighbors or get_graph. No exclusions or conditions are given for when a different tool would be more appropriate. The context is clear enough for a basic recommendation, but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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