get_dop_relationships

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the READ_ONLY nature, the hard max_objects limit, and that responses pass through apply_response_cap, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it does not explain pagination mechanics, error behavior, or what the response contains.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every phrase adds information. There is no redundant text or repetition of schema details.

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 covers the basic purpose, read-only safety, and a key constraint (max_objects). However, it omits parameter semantics and any description of the return structure or pagination behavior. It is minimally complete for a niche tool but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the max_objects parameter (hard limit) and the response cap, leaving ctx, dop_path, limit, and offset semantically unexplained. This is minimal compensation for a 5-parameter tool.

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 '分页读取 DOP relationships' (paged read DOP relationships) with a specific verb and resource, and also notes it is READ_ONLY. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_dop_objects or get_dop_object, so it misses the top score.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies a read operation with pagination, but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when to prefer other relationship-related tools.

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