get_related

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states 'Get related documents' without explaining the underlying relatedness logic, performance implications, or whether any side effects occur.

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 extremely concise (4 words), but this brevity comes at the expense of informativeness. While it is not verbose, it does not earn its place by providing sufficient detail.

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 the presence of three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It lacks critical context such as the definition of 'related', how the 'limit' parameter affects results, and any expected output format.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'projectPath' has a description). The tool description adds no additional meaning for parameters 'documentId' and 'limit', leaving the agent uninformed about what 'limit' controls or what 'documentId' refers to.

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 'Get related documents' clearly specifies the action (get) and the resource (related documents), making the tool's purpose reasonably clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_document_graph' which might also retrieve related documents.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search' or 'explore', nor does it specify any prerequisites or constraints.

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