mmar_get_relationclass

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a read operation ('Get') and enumerates returned data (role_from, role_to, attributes, connection rules), but it omits session/auth prerequisites and behavior for invalid/nonexistent UUIDs. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, and every word earns its place. It efficiently communicates purpose and return contents without filler or redundancy.

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 single-UUID getter with no output schema and one fully documented parameter, the description covers the essential return contents. Missing details like not-found behavior and session requirements are minor gaps for a read-only retrieval tool.

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 single parameter 'uuid' already has full schema coverage with a clear description ('The UUID of the Relationclass to retrieve'). The main description adds no further parameter semantics beyond restating that lookup is by UUID, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Get') and names the exact resource ('relation type (edge type)'), identified by UUID. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mmar_get_relationclass_instance by clarifying it returns the relationclass definition, not an instance, and lists key returned components.

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 when a single relationclass's full definition is needed by UUID, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives like mmar_get_relationclasses_for_scene_type. There is no direct mention of when to choose it or when to avoid it.

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