Get all relations for an item — alternatives, complements, upgrades, duplicates. Returns the item and all connected items with their relation types.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The item ID to get relations for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the return structure ('Returns the item and all connected items with their relation types'), giving behavioral insight beyond the safety profile without contradicting annotations.
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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and specific relation types. Every word contributes to understanding, with no filler or 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?
For a low-complexity, single-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, the description adequately states what it does and what it returns. It could specify whether the graph is recursive or direct, but this ambiguity is acceptable given the simple schema and supportive annotations.
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?
The single parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema ('The item ID to get relations for'), so the description adds no additional semantic meaning. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 specific verb 'Get' with resource 'all relations for an item' and explicitly lists relation types (alternatives, complements, upgrades, duplicates). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_item, which fetches a single item.
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 clear context: use this tool to retrieve all relations for an item. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the scope is evident from the phrase 'all relations', making it distinct from get_item, link_items, and similar sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with no obvious duplicates. The only potential overlap is between update_item and update_price, but the descriptions clarify that update_price is specifically for manual price corrections with history tracking.
All tool names follow the snake_case verb_noun pattern consistently (e.g., add_item, create_collection, get_item_graph). Slight deviations like add_to_collection and ping are still predictable and conventional.
With 23 tools, the server sits in the heavy range (16-25). While each tool serves a distinct purpose, the count is higher than typical for a shopping-save app and may feel overwhelming, though not excessive.
The tool surface covers full CRUD for items and collections, relations, history, activity, and utilities. Minor gaps exist—such as no dedicated 'move item between collections' tool—but workarounds are possible using existing tools.
