mmar_get_attribute_instances_for_relationclass_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose what happens if the relationclass instance does not exist, whether an empty list is returned, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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, clear sentence that conveys the essential information without any unnecessary words, repetition, or boilerplate. It is concise and front-loaded.

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 get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what it does and the return concept ('all attribute instances'). However, it lacks any mention of failure modes, prerequisites (e.g., the relationclass instance must exist), or any behavioral context that would be important for an agent, especially given the absence of annotations and output schema. Thus, it is minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with a single parameter relationclass_instance_uuid described as 'The UUID of the RelationclassInstance'. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter format or usage beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 gets all attribute instances for a specific relationclass instance, with 'connection' in parentheses clarifying the domain term. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool mmar_get_attribute_instances_for_class_instance, making 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?

The description implies usage context: you need a relationclass_instance_uuid to retrieve attribute instances. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., mmar_get_attribute_instances_for_class_instance) or provide any exclusions. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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