Get relationships

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions automatic resolution of display name and direction, which adds useful context. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, discuss authentication needs, or note any rate limits.

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 long, front-loads the core purpose, and includes relevant detail about relationship types and automatic resolution. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or unnecessary content.

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?

The description covers the primary function well for a low-complexity read tool. However, it omits discussion of pagination (limit parameter), ordering, or the structure of the return value, which could be helpful given the lack of an output schema.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 67%, with descriptions for contact_id and active_only. The description reinforces contact_id's purpose but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. The limit parameter lacks a schema description and is not mentioned in the tool 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 states the verb 'List', the resource 'relationships', and the scope 'for a contact'. It specifies relationship types (family, employer, membership, custom types) and distinguishes from sibling tools like civicrm_get_contact and civicrm_list_entities by focusing exclusively on relationships.

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 to use this tool: to list relationships for a contact. It implicitly differentiates from alternatives by being relationship-specific, but does not explicitly exclude other cases or mention when-not to use.

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