memoryguard_codegraph_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the result is a single bounded directed path and that direction matters, but it does not explain what 'bounded' means in practice, what happens if no path exists, or any scoping or side-effect behavior. The edge cases and operational behavior are undocumented.

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 one sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the core operation and its key constraint. There is no filler or repetition, and the essential purpose is immediately visible.

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?

This is a 6-parameter tool with no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only source of guidance beyond raw parameter names. It does not cover parameter semantics, no-path behavior, return shape, or how workspace/provenance scoping affects results. The description is too thin to fully support correct invocation in non-trivial cases.

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. It loosely identifies 'two scoped CodeGraph symbols', which maps to start_id and end_id, but it says nothing about relation, max_depth, workspace, or provenance semantics. Since max_depth and relation are likely central to path binding, this is a significant gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and a precise object: 'one bounded directed path between two scoped CodeGraph symbols'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling codegraph query/explain/affected/update/status operations because it targets a path-finding result. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the resource and behavior are unambiguous.

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 implies the tool should be used when an agent needs a directed path between two symbols in the CodeGraph. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over memoryguard_codegraph_query or memoryguard_codegraph_explain, and it does not name alternatives or exclusions. Routing is left mostly to the agent's inference.

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