list_relationships

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It's a read/list operation, but the description doesn't state whether it's read-only, what pagination behavior exists beyond the schema defaults, or what the returned structure looks like. For a list tool with no annotations, this is inadequate.

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 short sentence), which is efficient, but it's under-specified rather than genuinely concise. There's no wasted text, but the brevity borders on under-specification given the tool complexity (6 params, nested filter object).

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?

The tool has 6 parameters including a nested filter object, but no output schema. The description doesn't explain the pagination/filtering capabilities partially documented in the schema, nor does it describe what relationship data looks like when returned. With no output schema and a complex filter mechanism, the description should do more to convey what the tool returns and how filtering works. The profile_id parameter has important API-key scoping behavior documented in the schema but not reflected in the description.

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 baseline is 3. All 6 parameters (limit, filter, offset, order_by, order_desc, profile_id) have descriptions in the schema. The description itself adds nothing about parameters, but with full coverage, the schema handles the burden adequately. The filter param's 'column name: value' format is somewhat ambiguous but documented.

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 is '人間関係一覧を取得' (retrieve list of relationships), which states verb+resource but is minimal. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like get_relationship (singular fetch) or describe what a relationship entry contains. There's no detail to differentiate it clearly beyond the trivial verb+object.

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 vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that get_relationship fetches a single item, or how this compares to other list_* sibling tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context given.

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