evidence_get_relations_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get the list' implies a non-mutating read, and the phrase 'available for an evidence' adds some scoping context, but the description does not clarify whether the tool returns relation names only, what happens for unknown evidence names, or whether any special permissions are needed. It is minimally adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the verb and resource immediately. It is concise with no filler, though the parenthetical 'sub-evidences (relations)' could be clearer for an unfamiliar agent.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, there are no annotations, no usage guidance, and no clarification of what 'sub-evidences (relations)' means or how the evidence name should be supplied beyond the schema. The description is adequate for a straightforward list operation but leaves contextual gaps.

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%: the only parameter, 'evidence', is already described as 'Evidence name' with a required flag. The description adds only that the list is 'for an evidence', which loosely reconnects the parameter to the purpose but does not provide additional meaning such as expected format, examples, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('list of sub-evidences (relations)'), and a scope ('available for an evidence'), so the agent can tell it is a read-oriented listing tool. It is reasonably distinct from sibling evidence_get_* tools because it focuses on relations, though the term 'sub-evidences' is jargon and no explicit sibling differentiation is offered.

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?

There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as evidence_get_properties, evidence_get_labels, or evidence_get_reports. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate use case from the tool name and the word 'available'.

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