list_relations

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only implies a read operation ('Henter') without detailing any other behavioral aspects like permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The tool's behavior beyond the basic action is opaque.

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, short sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without any filler. It is front-loaded and every word contributes value.

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 lack of an output schema and the tool's listing nature, the description should explain what kind of relations are returned (e.g., IDs, names, types). It provides no such detail, leaving the agent uninformed about the response format.

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?

The input schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions (Kilde-modul, Mål-modul, ID på mål-objektet) and enums. The description adds no additional meaning beyond summarizing the operation, so it meets the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 'Henter relationer mellem to moduler' (Get relations between two modules), which clearly identifies the tool's action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling list tools like list_objects or list_orders by focusing on inter-module relations.

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. No context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it is mentioned.

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