akb_relations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It correctly indicates a read operation ('Get relations') but omits important traits such as permission requirements, rate limits, how results are scoped, or whether there are limits on the number of relations returned. The lack of side-effect disclosure is acceptable for a read tool, but more detail is needed for safe invocation.

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 a single sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and supported resource types. 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?

Given the moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate for understanding the high-level function but lacks details on return format, pagination, or how the 'both' direction behaves. It is minimally acceptable 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?

The input schema provides descriptions for 2 of 3 parameters (uri and type), covering 67%. However, the description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is in the schema; it only restates the purpose of the uri parameter implicitly. The direction parameter lacks description both in schema and description, and the description does not clarify its meaning or default behavior.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'relations', and lists the three resource types (document, table, file) and cross-type connections. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like akb_get (which gets a single resource) or akb_graph (which may show different relationships).

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 the tool is for viewing cross-type connections, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives (e.g., akb_graph, akb_provenance) or any exclusion criteria. The context is implied but not clearly stated.

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