ifcx_query_spatial_path

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'returns the composed parent chain' without detailing side effects (none likely), return format, or any required state (e.g., valid sessionId). This is insufficient for a query tool.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices necessary detail. For a tool with three unexplained parameters, this brevity is inadequate. A score of 3 reflects that it is not verbose but lacks completeness.

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 the tool's complexity (three parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It omits parameter meanings, return value structure, usage constraints, and any context for when to invoke this tool.

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 adds no explanation for the three parameters (sessionId, stackId, path). The path parameter is hinted at by the description, but sessionId and stackId remain unexplained, leaving the agent without critical context.

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 the tool returns 'the composed parent chain from root to a node,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes this from sibling query tools like ifcx_query_nodes or ifcx_query_relationships, which likely return different data.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preconditions, context, or when not to use it.

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