listRelationships

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only restates the purpose. It doesn't disclose pagination behavior beyond schema hints (limit/offset), whether personId is optional or required, return format, or any side effects. It adds minimal 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, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

For a simple list tool with fully described params and no output schema, the description is minimal but mostly adequate. However, the lack of annotations and the absence of guidance on personId requirement leaves gaps. Given siblings like getRelationship exist, a bit more context on what 'relationships' includes or when personId is needed would improve completeness.

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 adds a slight context by linking the personId to 'for a person', but it doesn't explain nuances like format, defaults, or how the parameters interact. The schema already handles parameter descriptions adequately.

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 (list) and resource (relationships) with a scope (for a person). It is distinct from getRelationship (which implies fetching a single relationship) and create/updateRelationship, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself. It's a clear, non-tautological statement.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like getRelationship. There is no mention of prerequisites, required parameters, or context such as whether personId is necessary. The description simply states what it does without guiding selection.

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