Relationship Classes

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope 'related to the dataset' but no further behavioral context such as whether both origin and destination relationship classes are returned or any dataset-type restrictions.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the read action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only tool.

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?

The tool is simple, has rich annotations, and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values or safety. However, it does not compensate for the 0% parameter schema coverage or provide any usage context, leaving minor but real gaps for an agent invoking 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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema does not document the single required parameter dataset_path. The description only conceptually references '数据集' but gives no format, path syntax, or constraint information to compensate for the schema 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 states a specific read action and resource: reading relationship class names related to a dataset. It clearly distinguishes itself from write-oriented siblings like arcgis_pro_create_relationship_class and arcgis_pro_delete_relationship_class, but does not explicitly differentiate from other list/read tools such as arcgis_pro_list_subtypes or arcgis_pro_list_domains.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. Usage is only implied by the verb '读取' and the resource, leaving the agent to infer that this tool should be selected when relationship class names for a dataset are needed.

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