find_paths

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that it requires Infrahub 1.10+ and that a count of 0 indicates no path. No mention of performance, return format, or other behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences plus a line about version requirement. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 6 parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential behavior (shortest paths, count meaning, version dependency). It could mention that multiple paths may be returned or that path order is not guaranteed, but overall is quite complete.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., clarifying source and destination as UUID or HFID), but this is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 shortest path(s) between two nodes in the Infrahub graph, and provides a usage question as context. It is specific about the resource and action, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'find_reachable'.

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 gives a typical use case ('how are these two objects connected?') and explains that a count of 0 means no path within max_depth. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to other tools like find_reachable.

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