get_related

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool returns a broad set of related content and implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose failure modes, authorization requirements, result limits, pagination, or what happens when the reference is invalid or missing. For a tool claiming to return 'all' related content, this missing behavioral context is significant.

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 two crisp sentences with no redundant filler. The first sentence states the core action and result categories; the second adds a useful framing of the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place.

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 a single parameter with full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations. The description adequately explains what the tool returns, but it omits usage context, result format, and edge-case behavior. It is sufficient for a basic understanding but not fully complete for reliable autonomous invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'tref' is already described as 'The text reference.' The description merely calls it 'a specific reference,' adding no format, syntax, or example information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Get all content related to a specific reference') and enumerates the content types included (links, sheets, notes, media, manuscripts, topics), which helps distinguish it from narrower siblings like get_links, get_topics, and get_related_websites. It falls slightly short of 5 because it doesn't explicitly name any sibling or precisely define what constitutes a 'reference' or 'connected material.'

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 phrase 'Comprehensive way to find connected material' implies this tool is for broad discovery rather than targeted retrieval, which gives some usage signal. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over siblings like get_links, get_topics, or get_manuscripts, and offers no when-not-to-use guidance.

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