get_element_relationships

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It lacks disclosure about permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or whether it's read-only/destructive. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but provides minimal behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points for relationship types.

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 read operation with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return format, pagination, error cases, or relationship structure. With no annotations and missing output schema, more behavioral context is needed for adequate completeness.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by mentioning relationship types (similarities, verb-based connections, references) that align with schema enums, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details beyond what's in 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('relationships for a specific element'), with specific types of relationships listed (semantic similarities, verb-based connections, cross-element references). It distinguishes from general search tools but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'get_element_details' or 'find_similar_elements'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_similar_elements' or 'get_element_details'. The description implies usage for relationship retrieval but lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.

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