find_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the function but omits critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it has performance implications for large graphs, what happens if no path exists, or if there are rate limits. For a computational tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the core action ('find shortest path'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving maximum efficiency in communication.

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 a pathfinding operation, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the output looks like (e.g., a path list, distance), error conditions, or dependencies on other tools like 'create_state_graph'. For a tool with three required parameters and computational nature, more context is needed.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, meaning all three parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no semantic information about 'graph_id', 'from', or 'to'—it doesn't explain what these represent (e.g., node IDs, names), their formats, or constraints. Since the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, the score remains low.

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 action ('find shortest path') and the resource ('between two nodes'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_edges' or 'visualize_graph' by focusing on pathfinding rather than data retrieval or visualization. However, it doesn't specify the type of graph or algorithm used, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an existing graph, nor does it differentiate from potential siblings that might handle similar tasks (e.g., 'get_execution_sequence' could involve paths). Without any context on when or when not to use it, the agent lacks operational clarity.

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