shortest_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. It states the algorithm (bidirectional BFS) and return format, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. Given the nature of path finding, it is likely read-only, but this is not explicit.

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 concise, consisting of three sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, algorithm, output, prerequisites, and use case. No redundant 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 the absence of an output schema, the description adequately indicates the return format (list of entity texts). It could be improved by noting behavior when no path is found or when max_hops is exceeded, but overall it covers the essential aspects for a path-finding 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, such as explaining the meaning of 'max_hops' or the format of entity texts.

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 finds the shortest path between two entities using bidirectional BFS. It specifies the resource (knowledge graph) and the operation (path finding). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'query_graph', which may also return paths.

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 mentions it is useful for understanding how concepts are connected and requires a storage adapter with graph capability. It provides some context but does not specify when to use this over alternatives 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.