find_intro_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 of behavioral disclosure. The description doesn't state whether this is a read-only path-finding operation, how paths are computed, whether it requires existing data/graph state, what happens when no path exists, or the depth limit behavior. For a tool that traverses a graph, the underlying mechanics and limitations are undocumented.

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 efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It conveys the core purpose clearly. However, given its brevity, it prioritizes compactness over the behavioral and parameter details that would add value.

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?

There is an output schema, which helps with return values, but this is a graph-traversal tool with three parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations. The description doesn't address the meaning of 'short', the depth semantics, what constitutes a path, graph prerequisites (e.g., does the graph need to be built first?), or failure behavior. For a non-trivial pathfinding tool, this is under-specified.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains target_organization and from_person at a high level implicitly (the 'to/from' of the path). However, max_depth is entirely unexplained—its meaning, valid range, default behavior, and performance implications are absent from both schema and description. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the parameter names already convey.

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 verb ('Find'), the resource ('relationship paths'), the subject ('a person'), and the target ('anyone at a target organization'). It's specific enough to convey the core function. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like connect_people or search_people, though the name 'intro_path' front-loads the intent reasonably well.

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?

There's no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like search_people or connect_people. The description implies usage context ('relationship paths','intro') but doesn't name alternatives or exclusion criteria. With siblings that overlap thematically (connect_people, search_people), this is a meaningful gap.

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