trace_path

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it leaves key traits unstated: whether the tool is a pure read, what happens when no path exists between the two discoveries, whether direction matters, or how long a returned chain might be. It does convey the conceptual output ('chain of discoveries'), which is the one behavioral signal present.

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?

Front-loaded with the core concept and two illustrative examples, then a compact Args block. The examples earn their space by disambiguating the abstraction; the Args block repeats parameter names but adds the name-or-id semantics, so it is not pure 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and both parameters are described. But for a tool with zero annotations, the description says nothing about the no-path case, result ordering, or read-only safety, leaving material gaps an agent would want before calling it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: the Args block names both parameters and explains the critical detail that each accepts either a discovery name or an Atlas id. It does not clarify symmetry (whether from/to can be swapped) or what 'frontier' means as a valid to_discovery value, which is mentioned but left undefined.

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 identifies the resource precisely — 'the chain of discoveries linking two stars of the ReviewMetric Atlas' — and the two concrete examples (double helix → AlphaFold, Turing machine → quantum computer) make the operation unambiguous. It stops short of stating a verb like 'returns' or 'computes' and never distinguishes itself from siblings such as search_atlas or list_frontiers.

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?

Usage is only implied: the examples suggest you call this when you want a connecting lineage between two known discoveries. There is no statement of when to prefer this over search_atlas or place_on_atlas, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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