find_path_between

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the default exclusion of stub nodes, why they are excluded (degree-1 dead ends), and the option to include them. Also describes that it returns simple paths up to maxDepth.

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 sentences plus an additional sentence about stubs, all front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers core function, parameters, and a key behavioral detail. Could mention return format, but not essential.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining the default behavior of includeStubs and the rationale for stubs. Brief explanation of includeCommon also provided.

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 starts with 'Find link paths between two notes,' which is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'find_connections' and 'list_notes' by focusing on path finding between two specific notes.

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 provides implicit usage context (finding paths between notes) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No mention of other tools for path finding.

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