mimry_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only implies a read-only traversal via 'Find'. It does not disclose path semantics (e.g., dependency vs. call graph), directionality, performance, error conditions, or any side effects.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the operation and the two endpoints. It is efficient but too terse to provide structure or scannable guidance, keeping it from a top score.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description omits essential input semantics, usage context, and sibling differentiation, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. It vaguely identifies source and target ('two files/symbols/queries') but gives no format, syntax, or examples, and the optional 'root' parameter is completely unmentioned.

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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('relationship path between two files/symbols/queries'), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like mimry_related, mimry_route, or mimry_why, so an agent cannot tell them apart without further inspection.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. The agent is left to infer that this is the path-finding option, but nothing in the description confirms that or excludes other tools.

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