list_vault_entity_relationships

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

No annotations provided, and the description adds no behavioral details beyond the name. It fails to disclose whether list is paginated, filtered, or how relationships are defined. The description is entirely insufficient for understanding tool behavior.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), but lacks structure and critical details. While brevity is valued, it sacrifices completeness and clarity.

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 has 6 parameters and an output schema (though not shown in description), the description is far too minimal. It does not explain what the output contains, how to use filters, or how it relates to sibling tools. Incomplete for effective use.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning or context for parameters; it merely restates the tool's name. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema bears the burden.

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 states 'List generic relationships between modeled entities.' It uses a clear verb and resource, but 'generic relationships' is vague and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like list_vault_entity_open_loops or list_vault_entity_states. No specificity about what constitutes a relationship.

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 vs. alternatives. With many sibling list tools, the description offers no context for selection, such as when relationships differ from events or states.

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