Get Entries Relations

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

The description only states 'read-only', which is important, but given no annotations, it fails to disclose any other behavioral traits like authentication requirements, performance characteristics, or side effects. For a tool with no annotations, more transparency is needed.

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 a single sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what a 'relation graph' represents or what the output structure looks like. The current description is too vague to fully inform the agent about the tool's behavior.

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 100% for the single parameter entry_ids, which is well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'entry' and 'relation lookup', so it meets the baseline but provides no extra value.

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 it's a read-only operation to retrieve entry relation graphs, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform create/update/validate actions. However, it lacks specifics on what constitutes a 'relation graph'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as dl_read_object or dl_get_workbook_entries. No conditions or exclusions are provided.

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