list_task_relations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List all relations' but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what the output format might be, whether there are pagination or rate limits, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, efficiently conveying the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of listing relations (which could involve various types like dependencies or links), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'relations' entail, the return format, or any behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 has 100% description coverage, with 'taskId' clearly documented as 'The ID of the task'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 the verb 'List' and resource 'relations for a task', which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_tasks' or 'list_subtasks' beyond the specific resource type, and it lacks specificity about what 'relations' means in this context (e.g., dependencies, links, or associations).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context for listing relations, or how it differs from other list operations like 'list_subtasks' or 'list_task_labels', leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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