get_note_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 the broad shape of the return data but says nothing about permissions, pagination, ordering, or what happens for a note with no relationships.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, immediately naming the verb, the resource, and the kind of data returned.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it indicates the returned relationship data. However, with zero annotations it could reasonably state the read-only nature or response shape more explicitly.

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% for the single noteId parameter ('Note UUID'), so the schema already documents the input fully. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 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 note') and clarifies the returned data ('linked customers, entities, etc.'). It is distinguishable from write siblings like create_note_relationship, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the near-named get_entity_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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as get_entity_relationships or list_notes, and no prerequisites. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the word 'relationships'.

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