vpp_list_relationships

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that every relationship carries an id needed for deletion (implying a follow-up delete workflow) but says nothing about permissions, ordering, or the meaning of 'path' (presumably a .vpp project file).

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 front-loaded with the output's shape in notation terms, then the id note, then the filter. It is dense but every clause carries information; the notation enumeration is long but genuinely distinguishes relationship types.

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 return structure needn't be re-explained, and the relationship-kind enumeration covers semantics well. The main gap is the undefined required 'path' parameter, which an agent cannot resolve from schema or description alone.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains class_name as a filter narrowing to one class's relationships, but leaves 'path' completely undefined – the agent must infer it is the project file path.

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 states the specific verb+resource (listing relationships) and enumerates the relationship kinds in PlantUML notation (generalizations, realizations, dependencies, associations with multiplicities/roles). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like vpp_list_classes or vpp_get_class, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

It implies usage through 'each has an id (needed for deletion)' and 'class_name narrows to a given class''s relationships,' which hints at pre-deletion discovery and filtered listing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus alternatives such as vpp_export_plantuml or vpp_get_class.

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