get_element_relationships

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions what relationships are included (semantic similarities, verb-based connections, cross-element references) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists relationship types clearly. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (e.g., list of relationships with details), potential errors, or usage constraints. For a read operation with moderate complexity, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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', specifying the scope includes semantic similarities, verb-based connections, and cross-element references. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_element_details' (which likely returns element metadata) and 'find_similar_elements' (which likely finds similar elements rather than relationships), though it doesn't explicitly name these distinctions.

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. The description implies usage when relationships are needed, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'get_relationship_stats' or 'search_by_verb'. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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