get_table_relationships

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'Get foreign key relationships' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, it does not disclose what the output will look like (e.g., list of related tables, column mappings, schema filtering behavior). This is adequate but lacks behavioral depth.

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 with no redundant words. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool, the description is mostly sufficient. It provides the core function and a usage hint. However, since there is no output schema, a brief mention of the return format (e.g., related tables and key columns) would enhance completeness without adding much length.

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% parameter description coverage (schema and tableName). The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the exact resource: 'foreign key relationships for a table.' It also includes a practical hint ('helps with JOINs') that differentiates it from broader sibling tools like get_table_dependencies or list_constraints.

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 phrase 'helps with JOINs' clearly communicates a common use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or contrast it with alternatives like get_table_dependencies or describe_table, which would strengthen guidance.

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