akb_relations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. Behavioral traits beyond the action are not 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant or filler content. Every word adds value.

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 query tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description explains the tool's function and the cross-type nature. However, it omits any mention of return format, pagination, or how to interpret results. Usage guidelines are also missing, leaving the agent to infer from the name and schema.

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?

Description adds context about cross-type connections, which is beyond the schema. However, schema already describes two of three parameters (uri and type have descriptions, direction has enum). The description does not provide additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema offers. 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?

Description clearly states the tool gets relations for resources (document, table, file) and mentions cross-type connections. It is specific but does not differentiate from sibling tools like akb_graph, which might also show relations. However, the purpose is clear and useful.

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?

Description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as akb_graph or akb_search. No context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases is given.

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