inspect_model_relationships

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., that it returns relationships, no side effects). With rich annotations, a 3 is appropriate as the description complements but doesn't expand.

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, short sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though it sacrifices completeness. It could benefit from a brief explanation of parameters or usage context.

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 has 6 parameters (1 required) and no parameter documentation in the description, the description is incomplete. Although an output schema exists, the parameter semantics gap is significant for a tool with many parameters.

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%. The description does not explain any of the six parameters (e.g., instance, fields_metadata, include_computed). Parameter names alone are insufficient for accurate usage; e.g., 'instance' is ambiguous without explanation.

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 'Inspect model relationships and required field metadata' clearly states the verb 'inspect' and the specific resources 'model relationships and required field metadata'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_model_fields' which focuses on fields, not 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings, there are tools like 'get_model_fields', 'schema_catalog', and 'lookup_model_history', but no comparisons or exclusions are mentioned.

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