list_relations

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates the tool is safe and read-only. The description adds value by listing example relation types, giving the agent a sense of what 'typed relations' includes.

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 sentence that conveys all necessary information without any fluff. It is 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 tool's simplicity, a single required parameter, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose and the nature of the results.

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 single parameter card_id is self-explanatory from its name, and the description implies it by referring to 'a card's typed relations'. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description could have explicitly stated that card_id identifies the card, but it adds minimal extra meaning.

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 'List' and the resource 'a card's typed relations', providing examples like blocks, parent/child, duplicates. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_boards or list_cards.

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?

While no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given, the purpose is straightforward and the context of listing relations on a card is clear. The tool's simplicity makes explicit guidance less critical.

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