list_relationships

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by clarifying the bidirectional lookup scope (source and target), but does not address openWorldHint=true or explain return format/pagination.

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys purpose and scope. The parenthetical placement puts critical behavioral detail (bidirectional) immediately after the main clause without verbosity. No wasted words.

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?

Adequate for a simple read operation with complete parameter documentation and safety annotations. However, lacks output specification (format of returned relationships) and pagination behavior, which would be helpful given no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100% with the ideaId parameter fully documented. The description implies the parameter by referencing 'an idea' but does not add semantic details (format, constraints) beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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?

States specific verb 'Get' and resource 'relationships'. The parenthetical '(both as source and target)' clearly distinguishes the scope of retrieval (bidirectional), differentiating it from potentially unidirectional alternatives.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like create_relationship or get_idea. The 'both as source and target' hints at behavior but doesn't constitute usage guidelines.

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