search_find_related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. The word 'Return' suggests a read operation, but it does not explicitly state read-only, safety, or any side effects. Missing annotations and lack of disclosure (e.g., no mention of authentication needs or rate limits) leave the agent with insufficient behavioral context.

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 that is front-loaded with the return types, making it concise and to the point. It earns its place, though it could slightly improve by adding usage guidance without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), so the description need not detail return values. It lists the categories of related entities, providing essential context. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool and behavioral details, which are gaps given the low annotation coverage.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by explaining the parameter. It only mentions 'for an entity' without clarifying the format or expected value of 'entity_id', leaving ambiguity. The parameter name is self-explanatory to some extent, but additional meaning is needed.

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?

Description clearly specifies the tool returns related entities: device, area, floor, sibling entities, and area-mates. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and distinct resource types, effectively distinguishing it from sibling search tools like search_find_orphan_devices or search_search_entities.

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 implies usage for retrieving related entities, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_deep_search or search_search_entities. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are given.

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