get_related_types

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output types but does not discuss side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. For a read-only tool, it is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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 with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficient, wasting no words.

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, so return value details are not required in the description. The description lists the specific relationship types returned, providing sufficient context for a simple 1-parameter tool. However, it omits mention of edge cases like invalid type names.

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?

The single parameter 'name' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description only hints that it refers to a type ('for a type'), adding minimal meaning beyond the schema. It does not specify format, required constraints, or what constitutes a valid input.

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 the action 'Return' and the resource 'relationships for a type', specifying four types of relationships: subtype, parent type, field-reference, return-reference. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_type (returns a single type) and list_types (lists all types).

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 when needing relationship data for a type but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It lacks context that would help an agent decide between siblings.

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