find_relationships

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does clarify the direction semantics (outgoing vs incoming), but it omits other behavioral traits such as whether results are paginated, what fields are returned, or any required permissions. For a read-only tool, the lack of mutation is implied but not explicitly disclosed.

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?

A single well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's primary purpose and then explains the key option (direction). Every part of the sentence contributes value with no repetition or filler.

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 input side is complete with a required objectName and an enumerated direction parameter with a default. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what the returned relationship data looks like. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a moderate gap rather than a critical one.

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 both parameters are already documented well in the schema. The description's explanation of outgoing and incoming relationships adds a little context, but largely restates the schema text, keeping this at the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('relationships for an object'), and further clarifies what outgoing and incoming relationships mean. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_fields and get_object_details, which focus on other metadata aspects.

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 implies when to use it—when an agent needs relationship information for an object—but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it. With siblings that are all metadata-related, the intended use case is inferable but not directly contrasted.

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