get_relations

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It accurately states that the tool lists both incoming and outgoing relations, implying a read-only operation. However, it omits potential details like pagination or ordering, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

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 sentence of 8 words with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, 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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter), and the existence of an output schema documenting return values, the description sufficiently covers its purpose. It clearly states what is listed (incoming and outgoing relations) and for which memory, meeting completeness needs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It indicates that 'uid' is the unique identifier of a memory, adding basic context. However, it does not specify the expected format of the UID (e.g., UUID or string pattern), leaving some ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb 'list' and specifies the resource 'relations (incoming and outgoing) for a memory'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_memory' (gets a single memory) and 'link_memories' (creates relations).

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 states it lists all relations for a memory, but provides no guidance on when to use it over alternatives like 'search' or 'list_by_domain'. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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