get_relationship_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves statistics, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or what the output format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action ('Get statistics') and includes specific details, making every part of the sentence earn its place.

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 the tool's complexity (retrieving statistics with multiple metrics), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It outlines what statistics are included but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs or output format. For a read operation with no parameters, it's passable but could be more complete by addressing missing behavioral details.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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's purpose: 'Get statistics about the Enhanced Index relationships' with specific details like 'total counts by type, most connected elements, and index health metrics.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('Enhanced Index relationships'), but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_element_relationships' or 'get_collection_cache_health,' which might offer related functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_element_relationships,' 'search_all'), there's no indication of how this tool fits into the workflow or when it should be preferred over others.

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