directus_get_relation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to indicate whether this operation is read-only, what the expected response format contains, error conditions (e.g., if relation doesn't exist), or authentication requirements.

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?

While brief and front-loaded, the description is overly terse to the point of under-specification. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata leakage rather than helpful content, slightly reducing clarity.

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 3 parameters with zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should elaborate on what constitutes a 'relation' in Directus and what details are returned. It does not, leaving significant gaps in contextual understanding.

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% and the description provides no compensation—failing to explain what 'site' (instance identifier?), 'collection' (table name), or 'field' (column name) represent in the Directus context, or how they combine to identify a specific relation.

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 basic action ('Get relation details') but lacks specificity about scope—namely that this retrieves a specific relation identified by collection and field, distinguishing it from the sibling directus_list_relations which would return multiple relations. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds noise without clarifying purpose.

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 provided on when to use this versus alternatives like directus_list_relations, or prerequisites such as needing valid collection/field names. The description offers no usage context.

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