get_entity_relationships

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: results are restricted to confirmed relationships, not evidence-only mentions, and are directional (incoming/outgoing). It says nothing about pagination/ordering behavior, the meaning of the limit default, or that the call is a side-effect-free read.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and very short with no filler. The telegraphic fragment style ('Confirmed map relationships...', 'entity_id: from ...') slightly reduces readability but wastes no space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a two-parameter read tool, the description covers the key entity_id source and the confirmed-vs-evidence distinction; only the limit parameter's behavior remains uncovered.

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 schema adds no parameter documentation. The description clarifies the provenance of entity_id, which is genuinely useful, but leaves the limit parameter (type, default 100) completely unexplained, so it compensates for only half the gap.

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?

States a specific retrieval action on a specific resource: confirmed map relationships for an entity, including incoming/outgoing direction. It explicitly separates itself from evidence-only tools (get_entity_evidence), though it does not distinguish itself from get_relationship_summary or get_entity.

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?

Provides a concrete prerequisite chain — entity_id comes from search_entities or get_entity — and implies when to prefer this over evidence lookups via 'Confirmed — not evidence-only mentions'. It stops short of naming the alternative tool or stating exclusions explicitly.

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