find_memory_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'shortest path' but does not explain what constitutes a link, how paths are computed (e.g., algorithm, limitations), or the output format (e.g., list of keys, distance). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior for an AI agent.

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 any redundant or vague language. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent 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?

Given the complexity of pathfinding in a memory graph, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on link types, path constraints, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively in context with siblings like 'link_memories' or 'search_by_relationship'.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions ('Starting memory key', 'Target memory key'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining key formats or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the 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 specific action ('find the shortest path') and the resources involved ('between two memories through their links'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'find_memories_within_degrees' or 'get_linked_memories' by focusing on pathfinding rather than direct relationships or content search.

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 pathfinding between linked memories but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_by_relationship' or 'find_related_memories'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and description alone.

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