get_relationships

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it retrieves cross-references and relationships, which clarifies scope, but it does not disclose any additional behavior such as error handling, empty results, or performance characteristics. With annotations in place, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that is concise and free of filler. It states the action and target clearly without unnecessary detail. This is an appropriate length for a tool with a single parameter.

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?

While the tool has an output schema (not shown), the description does not clarify the semantics of 'cross-references and relationships'—what types exist, how they are organized, or any limitations. It is a simple tool with one parameter, but the description leaves the agent guessing about the nature of the returned data. Given the existence of an output schema, the description could be more complete about the tool's behavior.

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%—the entry_id property has no description in the schema. The tool description does not compensate; it only mentions 'for a resume entry,' which adds little beyond the parameter name. The agent receives no guidance on the expected format, example values, or constraints for entry_id, making this a significant gap given the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource: 'cross-references and relationships for a resume entry.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_entry (which likely returns the entry itself) and get_entry_context (which may return broader context). The phrasing is unambiguous and tells the agent exactly what data to expect.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_entry_context or get_entry. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, nor any mention of alternatives. The agent must infer its usage from the resource name alone.

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