get_entity_relationships

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that all relationship types are returned and lists examples, implying a read-only operation, but it does not mention permissions, pagination, rate limits, or response shape.

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 and followed by optional filter information. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with 3 parameters all documented in the schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and filtering. It is largely complete, though it omits pagination or limit behavior that an agent might need for a listing operation.

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 all three parameters (type, entityId, targetId) are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of filtering by relationship type or target duplicates the schema without adding syntax, format, or constraint details. 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('relationships') for a Productboard entity, and enumerates relationship kinds (parent, children, links, blocking). It distinguishes itself from get_entity by focusing on relationships rather than the entity itself, though it does not name a sibling alternative explicitly.

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 says it can optionally filter by relationship type or target, which implies a usage pattern. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_entity, list_entities, or the relationship-mutating siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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