path_between

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a critical trait: '경로가 없으면 만들어 내지 말고 연결이 확인되지 않는다고 말한다' (do not fabricate a path; report that no connection is confirmed). The verb '확인한다' also signals a read/verification operation. It does not discuss permissions or side effects, but those are less relevant for a graph-query tool.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage condition with examples, and the no-fabrication rule. The content is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 graph-query tool with a rich schema and an output schema, the description supplies the key selection condition and the critical negative-result behavior. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing when sibling tools such as answer_why or evidence_for would be more appropriate, but the agent can still call path_between 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents a, b, scope, and profile. The description's examples illustrate valid values for a and b but add no new parameter syntax or semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: '두 개념이 어떻게 이어지는지 확인한다' (verify how two concepts connect) and gives two concrete examples. The phrase '출발·도착이 분명할 때 쓴다' distinguishes this from broader siblings like traverse or enumerate by requiring clear endpoints.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: when the start and destination are clear, with examples. It does not, however, name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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