export_relationships

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as an export operation (likely read-only) but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it discuss side effects, limits (e.g., large data volume), or performance characteristics. The description provides basic behavior 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 three sentences long, with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action and output, the second provides included data fields, and the third suggests use cases. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates essential information without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main purpose, output formats, filtering options, and file saving. It is largely complete for a straightforward export tool. However, it could mention potential size limitations or that it exports 'all' relationships, which might be implicit but important for large datasets. The absence of output schema is acceptable as the description implies the return format.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the existing schema descriptions; it merely restates that format can be 'csv' or 'json', min_strength ranges from 0.0 to 1.0, entity_types filters, and output_path is optional. No additional context is provided for nuanced use, so the score remains at the baseline.

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 specifies the action (export), resource (entity relationships), and output formats (CSV or JSON). It lists included data (entity pairs, types, strength scores, document counts) and provides a use case (network analysis, visualization, data export), effectively distinguishing it from sibling export tools like export_entities or export_documents_bulk.

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 is 'perfect for network analysis, visualization, or data export,' giving some usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it, nor does it guide the agent to compare with alternatives like get_entity_relationships or export_entities. This lack of exclusions and alternative selection guidance leaves room for ambiguity.

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