graph_path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns a shortest path, preserves direction, and uses '(no path found)' as an answer for unconnected nodes. This goes beyond the annotation by describing output semantics and performance characteristics.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a clarifying example. It includes a performance note and a sentinel behavior without wasting words. Every sentence contributes value.

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 tool with three parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: shortest path, direction preservation, and the unconnected case. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional details.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as elaborating on 'from' and 'to' or the 'budget' parameter. The description reinforces the path-finding purpose but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 relation chain between two symbols while preserving direction. It explicitly answers the question 'how does A reach B' and distinguishes itself from siblings like graph_query by noting it does so without reading files between.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when a path between symbols is needed without reading intermediate files. It implies a lightweight, read-only operation but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. This is useful but not fully exhaustive.

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