find_connections

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It accurately describes the return format (JSON array of triples with subject/property/object objects) and filtering behavior. However, it omits potential caveats such as pagination, result limits, or error handling, making it minimal but not misleading.

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 tight and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a paragraph on search behavior, an Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers essential aspects: what the tool does, required and optional parameters, and the return shape. It omits edge-case behavior (e.g., no results, invalid IRI), but this is a minor gap for a read-only query tool.

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?

Since the schema has 0% parameter description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: subject_iri as the IRI of the subject concept, property_name as an optional filter, and object_iri as an optional object IRI. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema types and names.

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 tool finds/ searches for semantic connections (triples) between FOLIO concepts. It uses specific verbs ('Find', 'Searches') and describes the resource as subject-property-object triples, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_children or get_parents.

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 clearly indicates that a subject_iri is required and that property_name and object_iri are optional filters. This gives clear context on how to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternative tools or provide exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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