get_related

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that results are lightweight summaries (no HTML bodies) and that StackExchange does not support pagination on these endpoints. This is important behavioral context beyond basic functionality. It implicitly indicates read-only behavior (fetching related content). No contradictions.

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 relatively concise, with three short paragraphs covering purpose, return content summary, and pagination constraint, followed by parameter descriptions. Each sentence adds value; there is no redundancy. The parameter descriptions could be integrated inline, but the structure is clear and not verbose.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description provides adequate context: what it returns (titles, scores, tags), the pagination limitation, and parameter meanings. However, it could be improved by explicitly stating that the output is a list of items or by noting any authentication requirements. Still, it sufficiently enables an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, meaning the input schema only provides types and titles but no descriptions. The description's Args section provides meaningful natural language explanations for both parameters: question_id is 'StackOverflow question ID' and include_linked clarifies 'Whether to also include explicitly linked questions'. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 tool finds related and linked StackOverflow questions for discovery. It specifies the verb 'find' and the resource 'related and linked StackOverflow questions'. The name and description distinguish it from sibling tools like get_questions (single question) or search_questions (query-based search).

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 indicates the tool is for discovery of related content, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like search_questions or search_by_tags. It provides no guidance on when not to use it or under what conditions another tool would be preferable. The context is clear but not prescriptive.

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