find_path_to_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the build-resolution fallback and that the result is a shortest path (implying an algorithmic guarantee), but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it alters the loaded build, how ties or unreachable nodes are handled, or what form the path takes.

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?

Two short sentences with zero padding; the core action is front-loaded and the build-resolution caveat follows naturally. Nothing here is redundant or wasted.

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 simple two-parameter read tool this is adequate on inputs, but with no output schema and no annotations the description leaves the return value undescribed — an agent cannot tell whether it receives an ordered node list, a length, or a cost. That gap matters for a path-query tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the build_name fallback. The description restates that precedence rather than adding new semantics such as accepted ID formats or whether target_node_id may be outside the current tree; baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: computing the shortest path from the current tree to a named passive node. That is clearly distinct from siblings like get_nearby_nodes or optimize_tree, although it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 second sentence gives a real selection rule for the optional build_name ('uses loaded Lua bridge build when no build_name is provided'), which is useful. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_nearby_nodes or optimize_tree, and no preconditions or exclusions.

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