find_ci_path

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds rich behavioral context: bidirectional BFS, 10 relationships per node per direction limit, 60-second timeout, and detailed return fields. No contradiction.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, algorithm, prerequisites, performance, examples, args, returns). Front-loaded key information, every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

Complete coverage: algorithm, limits, prerequisites, return format, examples, and error conditions (timeout). Given tool complexity, description leaves no gaps.

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 description fully explains each parameter: source_sys_id and target_sys_id as CI identifiers, max_depth with default 5, range 1-10, and behavioral impact on API calls. Adds significant meaning beyond schema.

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 it finds the shortest relationship path between two CIs using bidirectional BFS. It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_related_cis and get_dependency_tree by focusing on pathfinding between two known endpoints.

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 clear when-to-use: 'useful when you know both endpoints and want to understand how they are related without traversing the full tree.' Also includes prerequisites (use search_cis first) and performance limits. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but context is strong.

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