find_path_between_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description shoulders the transparency burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: the environment variable requirement and the distinction between a 'note not found' precondition error and a 'no path between endpoints' outcome. It does not, however, describe the success return format or whether there are side effects (likely none).

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence contributes distinct information (purpose, prerequisite, error semantics). There is no redundancy or 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?

For a tool with no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, key prerequisites, and error behavior, which is fairly complete. Gaps include the lack of explicit success return shape and precise semantics of 'link path' or maxDepth, though the schema partially addresses maxDepth. Overall, sufficient for an agent to use correctly in most cases.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about OBSIDIAN_VAULT_PATH that relates to the vaultId parameter, but does not further explain source, target, or maxDepth beyond the schema. The added value is marginal.

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 states a clear and specific action: 'Find the shortest link path between two notes.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_note_connections (which likely retrieves connections for a single note) by the focus on path-finding between two endpoints. The purpose is immediately transparent.

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 a prerequisite (OBSIDIAN_VAULT_PATH) and contrasts two error conditions, providing some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_note_connections or search, nor does it describe exclusions or fallback scenarios.

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