Find related objects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only reveals that omitting relationshipType causes grouping by type. There is no information about destructive actions, authentication requirements, rate limits, output format, or side effects. The description is insufficient for an agent to anticipate tool behavior beyond the basic operation.

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 at two sentences, with no redundant words. The key behavioral aspect (grouping if type omitted) is front-loaded. Every word carries weight, making it an efficiently written description.

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 complexity of a graph traversal tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It fails to explain the return format, pagination, error conditions, or performance implications. An agent would lack crucial context for correct invocation and response handling.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it clarifies that omitting relationshipType triggers grouping by type, but does not elaborate on elementIds format or includeMetadata details. Overall, it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 the tool finds objects related to given ones via the i3X relationship graph, specifying the grouping behavior when relationshipType is omitted. While it identifies the operation and resource, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like search_objects or get_history, but the graph-specific language implies uniqueness.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparison with sibling tools. The sole usage hint is the grouping behavior, which is more of a functional detail than usage guidance.

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