list_relationships

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

Annotations already establish read-only and open-world behavior, so the description's added detail about relationship kinds (referenced/one side, referencing/many side, lookup column, cascade delete, intersect table) is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations.

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 dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, and the extra details are relevant. The parenthetical structure makes it slightly harder to parse, but it remains efficient.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what is returned—it does at a high level. However, with three parameters and zero schema coverage, the missing meanings of source and app are significant. The description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains only the table parameter ('limits to relationships touching that table') but leaves the required source parameter and the optional app parameter unexplained. An agent cannot reliably know what values to pass for these fields.

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 action (list) and the resource (table relationships) and specifies the meaning: one-to-many and many-to-many relationship metadata. It is easily distinguished from siblings like list_tables, describe_table, and fetch_query.

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 when to use the tool: when you need relationship metadata from a solution or a canvas app's cached schema. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or when NOT to use this tool compared to related siblings.

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