get_relationship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It adds essentially nothing beyond the tool name itself — no mention of return format, error behavior for missing IDs, authorization requirements, or any side effects. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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 short sentence, which is efficient, but it's under-specified rather than concisely informative. It's not wasteful, but it also doesn't earn its place by adding useful detail beyond the tool name and schema.

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 tool that's one of many near-identical get_* siblings (get_hobby, get_skill, get_persona, etc.) with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify what a 'relationship' entry is and how retrieval behaves. The Japanese locale note may also impede non-Japanese agents. The description is too thin to be complete.

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 coverage is 100% and there's only one parameter (id, UUID). The description's parenthetical '(IDで指定)' merely restates what the schema already documents. With full coverage and a single simple param, baseline 3 is appropriate — the description adds no additional semantic value.

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 '人間関係を取得 (IDで指定)' (Get relationship by ID) states a clear verb+resource, retrieving a relationship entry by ID. It distinguishes from the broader list_relationships sibling, though the parenthetical adds little since the schema's required `id` field already establishes this.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_relationships or get_relations. The description implies 'get by ID' but doesn't specify context (e.g., when you have a UUID from a list call). Among many near-identical get_* siblings, no differentiation is offered.

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