get-entity-relationships

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('Get') and specifies the relationship types, but it fails to mention permissions, return format, or any side effects. No contradiction exists.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It earns its place by specifying cardinalities.

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 single-parameter getter, the description is adequately complete: it names the entity type and the kinds of relationships returned. However, with no output schema or return-format hints, some uncertainty about the response structure remains, but it's sufficient for tool selection.

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 only parameter, entityName, has a clear schema description ('The logical name of the entity'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds little beyond restating 'for a PowerPlatform entity', so the schema already provides the meaning.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('relationships'), further narrowed by entity type ('PowerPlatform entity') and relationship kinds ('one-to-many and many-to-many'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get-entity-attributes or get-entity-metadata.

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 usage via its purpose, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives. Sibling names are not referenced in the description itself.

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