relations_query

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses important traits: both directions, default exclusion of tombstoned edges, and the special behavior of rel='distinct_from' returning live suppressions. It implicitly signals read-only via 'List' but does not explicitly state safety guarantees.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose followed by a bulleted args list. Each line is informative, and the distinct_from tip adds practical value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a 3-parameter tool.

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 query tool with no required parameters and an output schema (which can explain return values), the description covers all invocation-relevant details: optionality, filtering, booleans, and a notable use case. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for all three parameters. entity_id gets a concrete example and behavior when omitted; rel gets a meaningful example value; include_retracted explains the tombstoned-edge concept and default. This fully disambiguates the parameters.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'List relations touching a finding, in both directions.' It clearly identifies the operation as a read-only listing and differentiates from sibling mutation tools like relations_relate and relations_unrelate. The phrase 'in both directions' adds specific scope.

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 for using the tool, such as omitting entity_id to list all relations and filtering by rel. The specific tip that rel='distinct_from' lists live suppressions is a practical use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the listing verbs and the example make the intended usage evident.

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