find_relationships

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but omits any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or limitations. It also doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation, though 'discover' suggests it. For a graph traversal tool, the lack of detail on output format, pagination, or performance implications leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It immediately conveys the core functionality and the key scope (depth and entity). Every word earns its place, and the structure is optimal for quick scanning by an agent.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns in terms of structure and content. It mentions 'connecting graph paths' but doesn't specify the format (e.g., list of nodes, edges, or a graph object) or what happens when no relationships are found. It also doesn't clarify how depth affects the result beyond a simple traversal. For a tool with this complexity, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully predict 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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters (depth, entity_id, relationship) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, mainly reinforcing that the tool discovers relationships and paths. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 action ('Discover') and the resource ('1-hop, 2-hop, or 3-hop relationships and connecting graph paths'), anchored on a starting entity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_entity (single entity) and search_entities (search) by focusing on multi-hop relationship discovery. The verb-resource pair is specific and 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 when to use it ('starting from an entity') and its purpose (relationship discovery), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. With many siblings like trace_claim and compare_claims, an agent might infer this is for general relationship exploration, but there's no direct guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to choose instead. The usage context is clear but not explicit.

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