schema_get_relations

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

The description implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Get', which aligns with typical expectations. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state safety, permissions, or any potential side effects. It is minimally sufficient but lacks explicit disclosure.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place without redundancy.

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 metadata retrieval tool, the description is adequately complete. The schema handles parameter details. However, since there is no output schema, it could be improved by briefly noting the return format (e.g., a list of relationship objects), but the current level is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (schema and table_name), covering 100% of the parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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' with a clear resource 'foreign key relationships' and target 'table'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like schema_get_tables and schema_get_columns by specifying relationships.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as schema_get_columns or db_select. The description merely states what it does without any context about prerequisites or comparative use cases.

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