Get Relationship

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation (true), as it describes a 'check' operation. It adds behavioral context beyond annotations, such as the types of relationship statuses returned (following, followed by, blocking, muting, etc.). No contradictions.

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 two sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the tool's function and providing usage instructions. No unnecessary words.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown, but mentioned), the description does not need to explain return values. The combination of description, annotations, and input schema provides a complete picture for the agent.

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 full description coverage (100%) for all three parameters. The description adds meaning by specifying the format for 'acct' (username@instance) and giving usage guidance for multiple accounts. It also clarifies that 'accountIds' is deprecated, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 it checks relationship status with another account, listing specific statuses like following, blocked, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on relationship checking, which is not covered by other tools.

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 provides clear instructions: pass a single acct in 'username@instance' format, and for multiple accounts call once per account. It implicitly tells when to use (when you need a relationship check) but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, though the sibling tools are distinct.

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