list_relations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions pagination via cursor and returns 'List of connections with profile summaries,' which gives a basic behavioral picture. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the tool returns all connections or just one page. More detail would improve transparency.

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 concise, with a clear one-line purpose followed by parameter list and return description. It avoids fluff and is front-loaded. The structure could be improved with formatting, but it efficiently conveys essential information.

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 tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the return value as 'List of connections with profile summaries,' which gives a general idea but lacks detail on the structure of each connection. For a simple list tool, it is adequate but not fully complete, especially without schema descriptions.

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 no descriptions for its two parameters (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning: 'limit: Max results per page (default 50)' and 'cursor: Pagination cursor from previous response,' which clarifies usage. However, it could add constraints like acceptable range for limit. Overall, it adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 'List your 1st degree connections on LinkedIn,' specifying the verb (list), resource (1st degree connections), and context (LinkedIn). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_profile' or 'list_invitations_received' which have different purposes.

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 implies usage for listing connections but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not provide conditions for use or exclusion criteria (e.g., when to use search_people instead). While it is clear, it lacks proactive guidance on tool selection.

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