get_relationship_on_role

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose but fails to mention that the tool is read-only, idempotent, or what happens if the role does not exist. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous information. It is concise, though it could include a brief clarification of the return value without becoming verbose.

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 tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema (not detailed here), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain the relationship between this tool and related siblings, nor does it describe the response structure.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no details about the two parameters beyond their names. While matter_id and role_id are self-explanatory, the description does not clarify their required formats or any constraints.

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 states 'Get the contact relationship for a specific role on a matter,' which clearly indicates a retrieval operation targeting a single relationship associated with a particular role. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_relationships_on_matter (returns all) and add_relationship_to_role (mutation). However, the term 'contact relationship' could be more precisely defined.

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 specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_relationships_on_matter or add_relationship_to_role. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for invocation.

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