Get Related Objects

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuine constraint beyond them: availability is gated by IBM i release/TR level (7.3 TR9, 7.4 TR3 or later), which an agent must know before calling. It stops short of noting ordering or result limits.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler; the core capability is front-loaded and the prerequisite trails it. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. Together with the stated prerequisite, the definition gives an agent everything needed to decide and call correctly for a two-parameter read tool.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the defaulting behavior for 'schema'. The description adds no syntax, naming, or qualification detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb (List) plus the exact resource (views, indexes, triggers, and other dependent objects) and the underlying system function (SYSTOOLS.RELATED_OBJECTS). The dependency framing ('objects that depend on a table') clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_views, list_indexes, and get_table_constraints.

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 'depend on a table' phrasing implies the use case (reverse dependency lookup rather than plain listing), and the stated OS release prerequisites are a real usage condition. However, it never says when to prefer this over list_views/list_indexes/get_table_constraints, and gives no exclusions or alternatives.

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