shortest_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the default directed-traversal behavior and the undirected escape hatch, but says nothing about the return shape (path vs. node list), behavior when no path exists, or traversal cost limits beyond max_hops in the schema.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the behavioral modifier second. Every clause earns its place.

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 5-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose and the direction flag but leaves the result format and no-path behavior unstated, which an agent would need to call and interpret it confidently.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema; the description only re-explains undirected, which the schema already covers. Baseline 3 applies when 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Find the shortest path between two concepts in the knowledge graph'), which is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like get_neighbors or query_graph. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer in which situation, but the operation itself is clearly scoped.

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 ('between two concepts') and explains the undirected toggle condition, but never says when to choose this over get_neighbors or query_graph, nor any preconditions (e.g., concepts must exist in the graph). Usage is inferable, not stated.

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