get_contact_relation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but does not confirm non-destructiveness, authorization needs, or error handling. No mention of side effects or required permissions.

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 sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. 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 the presence of an output schema and two simple parameters, the description is minimally adequate for a basic retrieval tool. However, it lacks context about when to use this tool over siblings like 'get_contact_relations' or 'get_relationship_on_role', and does not mention error cases or pagination (though unlikely needed for a single item).

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 parameter names 'contact_id' and 'relation_id' are self-explanatory, but the description does not elaborate on their meaning beyond the schema. The description adds mild context by stating 'for a contact' and 'specific relationship'. However, schema coverage is 0%, so baseline expectation is higher; the description adds limited value.

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 'Get a specific relationship for a contact' clearly indicates retrieval of a single relationship resource. The verb 'get' and noun 'specific relationship' make the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes a 'relationship' in this context, but given the siblings, it is adequately distinct from the plural 'get_contact_relations'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like 'get_contact_relations', 'create_contact_relation', and 'update_contact_relation' exist, but no criteria for selection are given. The agent must infer from context that this tool is for a single relation by ID.

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