get_graph_path

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

Describes the return format (list of entities with canonical URLs or connected=false) and the depth limit (≤4 hops). No annotations are provided, so the description covers the essential behavioral traits. It could mention that it is read-only, but overall transparent.

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 plus an example. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and example, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or repetition.

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 and no output schema, the description covers purpose, input examples, depth limit, and return format. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, though it could explicitly state default maxDepth (3) as per schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the concept of 'shortest connection' and mentioning the example of a shared franchise, which enriches the understanding of the parameters and their usage.

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?

Clearly states the tool finds the shortest connection (≤4 hops) between two cricket entities. The example 'how is Kohli connected to Bumrah' makes it concrete and distinguishes it from siblings like get_player_connections which might have different logic or depth.

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?

Provides a clear use case for the tool (how is X connected to Y). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it. The example helps, but exclusion criteria are missing.

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