search_find_related

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 discloses the types of relationships returned but fails to mention any behavioral traits such as performance characteristics, response size limits, or side effects. This is adequate but lacks depth.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no redundant words. Every part contributes to understanding the output, achieving high conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, presumably documenting the return format, so the description does not need to detail that. However, the description is brief given the complexity of returning multiple relationship types. It lacks context on ordering, pagination, or whether results are guaranteed to be non-empty.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the single parameter (entity_id). The description does not elaborate on what entity_id represents or any constraints (e.g., format, required format). It adds no value beyond the schema itself.

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 that the tool returns related entities (device, area, floor, sibling entities, area-mates) for a given entity, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('related entities'). It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools like search_search_entities or search_find_orphan_devices by focusing on relationship discovery.

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 does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or contexts where search_find_related is preferred over search_search_entities or other search tools. The description solely describes output, leaving usage ambiguous.

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