get_relationship_summary

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses three useful behavioral traits: the call is cheap, counts cover only confirmed relationships, and results are broken out by type and direction. It doesn't discuss result limits or pagination, but with an output schema present, return shape is already covered.

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?

Two compact lines with zero filler. The cost and output shape come first, and the routing guidance follows, so the reader gets the essentials immediately.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, scope (confirmed only), and when to prefer it over the deep alternative. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether there are caps on the summary size.

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% for the single entity_id parameter, which is self-evident by name. The description adds meaning to the output grouping (type and direction, incoming vs outgoing) rather than to the input, so it only partially compensates for the documentation 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 verb and resource: relationship counts for an entity, grouped by type and direction (incoming|outgoing). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_entity_relationships by framing itself as the lightweight summary version.

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?

Explicit sequencing: "Use before deep get_entity_relationships when exploring a busy entity." It names the alternative and the condition (a busy entity with many relationships) that selects this tool over it, so the agent can choose without inference.

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