parse_query_relation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It openly describes the tool as a read-only query operation ('Consulta y obtiene') and mentions supported behaviors (filter, sort, paginate). It does not expose potential side effects because it is inherently non-destructive, which aligns with the query semantics.

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 succinct, consisting of two sentences that front-load the primary action and then detail the supported capabilities. There is no extraneous information.

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?

The description, combined with a well-detailed input schema, provides sufficient context for using the tool. It lacks an explicit mention of required parameters (className, objectId, relationField), but the schema marks them required, and the description's focus on relation fields makes the tool's purpose clear.

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 description only generically mentions 'filtros, ordenamiento y paginación' without naming actual parameters. The input schema itself provides detailed descriptions for each parameter, so the agent can still infer correct usage. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, hence a baseline score of 3.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Consulta y obtiene' (query and get), the resource 'objetos relacionados en un campo de tipo Relation' (related objects in a Relation field), and distinguishes itself from general query tools by specifically targeting relation fields.

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 provides clear context: it is for exploring existing relationships via filters, sorting, and pagination. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the purpose is evident among sibling tools like parse_query.

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