get_file_relationship

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination support and the return type (formatted string), but omits potential error behaviors, authentication requirements, or any side effects. For a query tool, this is reasonable but incomplete.

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 efficient and well-organized: a one-sentence summary followed by a clear Args list and Returns note. No redundant information, and the structure makes it easy to parse.

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 main operation, parameters, and pagination, but it does not enumerate valid relationship types or describe error conditions. Given no annotations and a minimal output schema, this leaves gaps that an agent would need to infer.

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 'Args' section thoroughly explains all four parameters, including accepted hash formats (MD5, SHA-1, SHA-256), the limit range (1-40), and cursor meaning for pagination. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and adds significant 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 opens with 'Query a specific relationship type for a file with pagination support,' providing a specific verb (query) and resource (file relationship). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_url_relationship and get_file_report.

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 states the tool's function but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_url_relationship or get_domain_relationship. Usage is implied by the file-specific focus, but no contextual or exclusionary guidance is given.

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