entity_read_related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation (non-destructive), but gives no information about what exactly is returned, how relations are resolved, potential failures, or any side effects. This is minimal and leaves important behavior undisclosed.

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, concise and free of fluff. It is appropriately sized, though it could benefit from a bit more detail. The structure is straightforward, with no wasted words, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 has 4 parameters with zero schema coverage, an output schema (which might explain returns), and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify parameter roles, relationship to the entity, or what 'related' means. While an output schema exists, the description still leaves critical invocation details unspecified, so the tool is under-described for its complexity.

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 the lack of parameter documentation. However, the description does not explain any of the four parameters (entity_name, entity_path, repository_path, declaration_path). It mentions 'front matter relations' but provides no mapping to parameters, leaving the agent to guess what each field means.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Read files referenced by an entity's DSL-governed front matter relations.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like entity_read (which likely reads the entity itself) and entity_list (which lists entities) by focusing on related files. However, 'front matter relations' is somewhat jargon-heavy and could be clearer for an agent unfamiliar with the domain, so it is not a perfect 5.

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. It does not mention that this is the tool to use when needing files referenced by an entity's relations, nor does it contrast with entity_read or entity_search. An agent must infer usage from the name and purpose, which is insufficient.

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