vyntryx_finding_relationships

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that AI-suggested impact is explicitly labelled, which helps an agent interpret provenance and reliability.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant content. Every clause contributes to explaining the relationship scope or the impact-labelling behavior.

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, so the description need not document return values, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. The remaining description is sufficient for a simple one-parameter relationship lookup, though it could clarify relationship direction or types.

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 for the undocumented uuid parameter. It only refers to 'this one' without naming the UUID, explaining its format, or clarifying whether it is a finding identifier; the meaning is inferable but weakly specified.

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 identifies the resource and output: findings linked to a given finding plus potential impact of fixing it. It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like vyntryx_get_finding or vyntryx_list_findings, but the relationship-focused purpose is still clear.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'Findings linked to this one and what fixing it may affect,' suggesting it should be used for relationship or impact exploration. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus vyntryx_get_finding or other sibling tools.

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