list_relations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Description adds useful behavioral context such as supported endpoint locators (raw, issue, document, card) and the requirement for at least one filter, but does not describe return format or pagination beyond schema.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundancy. The main action and a critical usage constraint are front-loaded.

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 parameters (especially source/target unions) and the existence of an output schema, the description provides the core purpose and a key constraint but lacks explanation of the 'association' parameter and how filters combine. Adequate but not thorough.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds meaning by mentioning locator types and filter requirement, but does not clarify the 'association' parameter's semantics (e.g., what an association ID represents) or the interplay between filters.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'List' and resource 'concrete Huly relation instances under an association', with optional filtering. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_associations (which lists relation definitions) and list_issue_relations (which lists relations for a specific issue) by focusing on relation instances under an association.

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?

Explicitly states requirement for at least one filter to avoid broad workspace scans, which provides clear usage context. However, it does not compare to alternative tools or specify when not to use this tool.

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