find_paths

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds 'bounded' but does not define what bounds apply (e.g., maximum path length). It does not mention behavior when no paths exist, performance characteristics, or output format beyond the name. The description adds some context but not enough to fully disclose important constraints.

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 a single sentence, concise and directly to the point. Every word contributes meaning. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

The tool is simple with 3 parameters and no output schema. The description is sufficient for basic understanding but lacks details like default maxPaths=3, what 'bounded' means (max paths? max depth?), and the return format (list of paths with nodes/edges?). Given the lack of output schema, more context would help an agent understand the result.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Find bounded relationship paths between two OKF concepts.' It specifies the verb (find), the resource (paths), and the domain (OKF concepts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_neighbors (immediate neighbors) or get_subgraph (broader subgraph).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios. For example, it could clarify that this tool is for exploring indirect connections, unlike get_neighbors which finds direct ones.

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