aras_get_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 explains the tool's behavior (returns relationship rows) and gives examples, but it doesn't disclose details like pagination behavior (though the 'top' parameter hints at it), whether it returns all relationships or only direct ones, or any potential side effects. Since it's a read operation, the lack of destructive warnings is fine, but more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 concise, two sentences, and front-loads the core purpose with examples. It also includes a useful pointer to another tool. No wasted words.

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 simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does, gives examples, and points to a discovery mechanism. However, it doesn't mention the return format or any limitations (e.g., max 500 results), but the schema covers the 'top' parameter. For a read-only relationship query, this is adequate.

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 67% (two of three parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the tool and giving examples of relationshipType values, which helps understand the parameters. However, it doesn't add much beyond the schema for the 'top' parameter, which is self-explanatory. The description compensates for the missing parameter description (top) by implying its use through the tool's purpose.

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 function: it returns rows of a relationship from a source element, with concrete examples ('Part Document', 'Part Changes'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on relationships retrieval, and even points to aras_describe_item_type for discovering relationships.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (to get relationship rows from a source element) and gives examples. It also suggests using aras_describe_item_type to discover relationships, which is a helpful pointer. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like aras_get_bom or aras_where_used, which could be relevant for similar queries.

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