get_subject_relations

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

Annotations fully cover readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. Description adds that it returns a list, but no extra behavioral context (e.g., pagination, ordering) beyond annotations. Not contradictory.

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?

One short sentence conveys the entire purpose without excess. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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 existence of an output schema, description adequately covers the tool's function. Could hint at output structure (e.g., 'IDs and names') but not required. Complete enough for a simple read 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 coverage is 100% with subject_id described as '条目ID'. Description does not add further meaning. For a single, self-explanatory parameter, baseline score 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 it retrieves a list of related entries (获取...相关条目信息列表), using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like get_subject_info by indicating 'relations'. However, it doesn't specify what constitutes a 'relation' (e.g., similarity, cross-reference), leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_subject_info or search_subjects. Missing context for when 'relations' are applicable, and no mention of prerequisites or alternatives.

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