GTech Networks DB: get relationships for a table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses it returns both FK-enforced and logical relationships, and the optional parameter behavior, but lacks details on auth, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only, which leaves behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loading scope and returning behavior. No redundant phrases; every word adds 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it returns (both FK and logical relationships) and the behavior when the parameter is omitted. It could mention that the operation is read-only, but overall it is sufficient.

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 one parameter. The description adds valuable semantics beyond the schema: it explains that omitting the parameter returns the full relationship map, which is not captured in the schema's generic 'description'.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: gets documented relationships (FK-enforced and logical) for a GTech/NetWorks Core table. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('relationships for a table'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_table_schema.

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 limits usage to GTech/NetWorks Core database only, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives (e.g., use get_table_schema for column metadata).

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