cyntrisec

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. While it mentions optional filtering and default values, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether there are rate limits, or how results are paginated (beyond the max_relationships parameter). For a tool that likely queries sensitive asset relationships, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It begins with a clear purpose statement, then provides a well-organized parameter section with brief but informative explanations, and concludes with a clear returns statement. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded effectively.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains all parameters thoroughly and specifies the return format. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it lacks context about the tool's behavioral characteristics and differentiation from sibling tools.

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 description provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains each parameter's purpose: filtering by type, source name, target name, maximum results, and snapshot ID. It even provides example relationship types ('CAN_ASSUME', 'CAN_REACH', 'MAY_ACCESS') and default values. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get relationships between assets with optional filtering.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('relationships between assets'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'get_attack_paths' or 'explain_path', which might also involve relationship analysis.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_attack_paths', 'explain_path', and 'check_access' that likely involve relationship analysis, there's no indication of how this tool differs in scope or use case. The description only explains what the tool does, not when it's the appropriate choice.

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