read_relations

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

Annotations already cover the read-only and non-destructive nature, as well as the open-world hint. The description adds useful context about bidirectional relations and included related cards, but does not disclose pagination, limits, or response structure details.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and enumerates the relation types without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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 this is a simple one-parameter read operation, the description is largely complete. Annotations provide the safety and open-world context, and the relation types plus related-card inclusion are enough for an agent to select and 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must provide meaning for the id parameter. 'Relations of a card' implies id is the card identifier, which is the essential meaning, though it is implicit rather than explicit.

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 identifies the tool's purpose as returning relations of a card in both directions, listing specific relation types and noting that the related card is included. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling read tools, but the resource and scope are 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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to use read_relations versus write_relate or delete_relation, nor does it mention any alternative tools for related operations.

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