mimry_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 does not state whether the operation is read-only or mutating, whether it requires an index or prior initialization, what happens if no path exists, or any rate limits. It merely restates the core action without additional behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a brief tool description, though it could benefit from additional structure to convey more information.

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 that there are no annotations, three parameters with zero schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the parameters, does not mention the output, and provides no behavioral details. While the output schema may cover return values, the description leaves major gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. It does not clarify what 'source' and 'target' represent beyond the vague 'files/symbols/queries' phrase, and it completely omits the optional 'root' parameter. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 and resource: 'Find a graph relationship path between two files/symbols/queries.' This clearly describes the operation. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like mimry_related or mimry_route, leaving ambiguity about when to prefer this tool over those.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mimry_related or mimry_route, which also likely deal with graph relationships. The description provides context but no exclusions or decision criteria.

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