get_relationships

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does well by explaining direction semantics (e.g., 'out' means this node calls/imports others) and enumerating valid relation_filter values, which adds behavioral context beyond the bare schema. Yet it does not explicitly state that this returns only direct/first-degree relationships, nor mention any limits like pagination, so it is not fully transparent.

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 efficiently organized: a one-sentence summary, then a clear argument list with inline documentation, and a return format specification. There is no filler or repetition. All content is purposeful and easy to scan.

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's moderate complexity (4 params, 1 required, no annotations), the description covers parameters, direction semantics, and return format. It omits edge-case behavior such as invalid node IDs or empty results, and does not explicitly state this is a read-only operation, but the 'Get' wording implies it. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to use correctly in most cases.

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 fully compensate. It does: every parameter (node_id, direction, relation_filter, project) is documented with its meaning and allowed values. Direction and relation_filter get particularly thorough explanation, covering all enum-like options. This far exceeds what the schema provides.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get all nodes connected to a given node, with relationship types.' The verb 'get' is specific, the resource (connected nodes with relationship types) is explicit, and the scope (direct relationships) is implied by the direction parameter semantics. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_path or trace_call_chain, which explore larger structures.

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 clear context for when the tool is appropriate (inspecting a node's direct connections) through its parameter explanations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, such as find_path for paths or trace_call_chain for call chains. This meets the 'clear context' bar but lacks explicit exclusions.

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