get_relations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly states the read-only nature (returns knowledge) and that others' relations are public information, which implies no special access for reading those. It does not mention potential side effects, but none are expected for a getter.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary function, and every clause provides distinct information (own data, return contents, public access to others). No extraneous wording.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential scope and access rules. It lacks explicit mention of what 'relations' entails or typical use cases, but the output schema likely addresses return structure, making the description sufficiently 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is already fully self-descriptive. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed; per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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 retrieves relationship data ('自分の関係性データを取得する'), specifies the scope (own and others' public relations), and is distinct from the sibling update/clear tools. The verb '取得' plus the resource and scope make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage context is implied by the tool name and siblings (get vs update/clear), and the description notes that other characters' relations are public. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use update_relation or clear_relation_field.

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