get_relationship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the operation and does not describe what happens for invalid refs, whether the model must be open, or what the response contains. 'Get' implies a read, but no safety or error behavior is disclosed.

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 one succinct sentence with no filler, front-loads the core operation, and avoids repeating schema information. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter.

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 two-parameter getter, the description is mostly sufficient to guide invocation, but it lacks explicit usage guidance, returns expectations, and behavioral guarantees. With no output schema or annotations, a bit more context would make it fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. The phrase 'by ref' clarifies relationship_ref, but model_id is left entirely to its name, and no formats, formats, or context are provided for either parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one CDM/LDM relationship'), and a selection method ('by ref'). It clearly distinguishes this from list_relationships and other relationship tools because it targets a single relationship by identifier.

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 when to use the tool: when you already have a relationship_ref and want one specific relationship. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like list_relationships or explain when not to use this tool, leaving routing partly to inference.

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