Shortest path between two memories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds that it is read-only, returns 'no path' on unreachable, and uses BFS. No contradictions.

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 sentences with no extraneous text. First sentence defines functionality, second provides usage guidance and purpose. Information is front-loaded.

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?

Covers algorithm, input/output behavior, usage context, and safety. With output schema present, return details are not needed. Lacks performance notes but is sufficient for typical use.

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 coverage is 100%. Description adds extra context for max_hops (returns 'no path' if beyond depth) and edge_types (optional whitelist). for id fields, schema descriptions are sufficient.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs BFS shortest path between two memories, returning chain of ids and edge types or a 'no path' message. It distinguishes from siblings like memory_search or memory_graph by specifying its use for path tracing and not for general search.

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?

Specifies to use after memory_search with both endpoints known, and outlines use cases (cause-effect chains, supersession history, dependency lineage). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context from siblings is available.

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