get_configuration_relationships

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return behavior ('Returns: JSON string with all related items'), which is useful for a getter. However, it doesn't mention anything about read-only status, permissions, pagination, or what 'all related items' means in practice, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, a brief convenience context, then Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, though the convenience note is slightly redundant with the tool's purpose. The front-loading is good.

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 simple one-parameter getter with an output schema, this is adequate. It covers the core purpose, parameter, and return type. However, it doesn't differentiate from the generic list_related_items sibling, nor does it state preconditions or potential failure modes, leaving some gaps in an agent's ability to fully determine when and how to invoke it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by calling configuration_id 'the configuration ID' and linking configuration to 'device/asset,' which goes beyond the schema's bare integer type. Yet it doesn't explain how to obtain a valid configuration_id or any format expectations, so the compensation is only partial.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get all items related to a specific configuration (device/asset).' The parenthetical clarifies what a configuration is, and the tool is easily distinguishable from sibling relationship tools like get_contact_relationships and get_flexible_asset_relationships based on the configuration focus.

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?

The description says 'This is a convenience method for a common use case,' which provides some usage context, but it never explicitly names alternatives or says when NOT to use this tool. An agent would need to infer that this is the configuration-specific version of list_related_items, but no direct guidance or exclusion is given.

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