people_getUserRelations

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying the default to the authenticated user and listing example relation types. It does not contradict annotations, but it omits details like whether relations are only direct or if an empty list is returned when none exist.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a useful default behavior. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary behavior and default. It does not mention the filtering capability of relationType, but that is documented in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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 input schema already fully describes both parameters with clear descriptions and 100% coverage. The description reinforces the default for userId and adds extra examples of relation types, but does not provide significantly more semantic depth beyond the schema.

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 'Gets a user's relations' and enumerates examples (manager, spouse, assistant). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like people_getUserProfile or people_getMe, which cover different aspects of a user.

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 usage by noting 'Defaults to authenticated user', which tells the agent that userId is optional when targeting the current user. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions, so guidance is mostly implicit.

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