find_connections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the algorithm (BFS traversal) and return structure, but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. The behavior is implied to be non-mutating, but not confirmed.

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 well-structured as a docstring with clear sections (Args, Returns). It is logically complete without excessive verbosity, though the algorithm mention could be more concise.

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 no annotations and no formal output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (list of paths with 'path' and 'entities'). It covers inputs, outputs, and algorithm, leaving minimal gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds substantial meaning to all 6 parameters, including optional behavior, defaults, and purpose (e.g., 'If None, returns all reachable entities'). This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 connections between entities using BFS graph traversal, with a specific verb and resource. While it differentiates from get_neighbors (immediate neighbors) and query_facts, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like find_similar_notes or get_entity, but the focus on chain discovery is evident.

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 implies use for discovering paths between entities, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like get_neighbors (direct neighbors) or query_facts (knowledge graph queries). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are given.

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