okf_suggest_concept_path

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already establish the safe, non-destructive nature. The description adds the word 'safe', which is not explained further, but it does not contradict annotations. Minimal additional behavioral context is provided beyond what annotations already convey.

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 function. No filler, no redundancy, and the core action is front-loaded. It is an excellent example of concise specification.

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 simple utility tool with four well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what it does. It implies that the tool returns a path (since it 'suggests' one), and the 'safe' qualifier hints at validation. Given the low complexity, it is sufficient for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters, such as constraints, format expectations, or relationships. The schema does the heavy lifting; the description simply restates the purpose without enriching parameter semantics.

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 ('Suggest') and resource ('bundle relative Markdown path'), and specifies the inputs ('from a concept type and title'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like find_paths (which deals with graph paths) and list_bundles (which deals with bundle listing). No ambiguity about what the tool produces.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites. It simply states what it does without contextualizing its use within the broader workflow. An agent would have to infer that this is a path construction helper, not something to be used for searching or listing.

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