List Relationships

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

With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already declared, the safety profile is covered by annotations. The description does add genuinely non-structured context — that evidence can be declared, inferred by name/value containment, or manual, and that role disambiguation and unlinked identifier columns are surfaced — but says nothing about volume, ordering, or scoping behavior of the listing.

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?

Two sentences, both carrying information: the first enumerates returned content categories, the second points at the mutation counterpart. The parenthetical evidence taxonomy is dense but earns its place; the only weakness is that the resource is front-loaded instead of the verb.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the meaningful content categories of the response. What is missing is modest: guidance on default scope (only proposed relationships), and how this listing relates to join-path or worklist tools.

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% and all three parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The phrase "proposed ones" faintly echoes the default status filter, but the description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 names the resource precisely — joins between tables, their evidence provenance (declared, inferred, manual), roles for multi-column joins, and orphan identifier columns — so an agent knows exactly what comes back. The action verb is only implied ("Joins between tables..."), carried by the name/title rather than the description text, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

It routes one case explicitly: "Review proposed ones with set_relationship," which tells the agent this is the read side and set_relationship the write side. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over related siblings such as find_join_path or get_modeling_worklist, nor any condition for choosing a status value.

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