Find all causal paths between two facts to expose reasoning links. Provide start and end fact IDs with max hops to return the fiber bundle of connections.
Enumerate all causal paths between two known facts. Returns the fiber bundle for that specific pair.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_hops | No | ||
| to_fact_id | Yes | ||
| from_fact_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does state that the tool enumerates paths and returns a 'fiber bundle,' which is useful, but it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, how exhaustive 'all' may be, or any computational costs or caps. No annotation contradiction exists.
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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence contributes useful information: what the tool does and what it returns.
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 tool with three parametersebab, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It doesn't explain what a 'fiber bundle' is in this domain, how max_hops affects the search, or what the output shape looks like, so an agent may struggle to invoke it 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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only loosely indicates that from_fact_id and to_fact_id represent 'two known facts,' and it never mentions max_hops or its effect, leaving the agent without sufficient parameter-level guidance.
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 a specific action (enumerate) on a specific resource (causal paths between two facts), so an agent can understand the core purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like reasoning_query or reasoning_critique, but the path-enumeration focus makes it reasonably distinct.
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 phrase 'between two known facts' implies when to use it, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as reasoning_query or reasoning_critique. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.