list_related_items

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does state that the tool returns a JSON string with a list of related items and lists valid resource types, which clarifies the basic read behavior. However, it does not mention permissions, error handling, pagination limits beyond parameter descriptions, or whether the operation is explicitly non-mutating.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Valid resource types sections, and it front-loads the core purpose. The only minor inefficiency is that resource_type examples in Args overlap with the later valid resource types list, but the list adds completeness without much bloat.

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 4-parameter list tool with no annotations, this description is fairly complete: it covers all parameters, valid resource type values, pagination basics, and return format. It lacks explicit error/edge-case behavior and alternative tool guidance, but the output schema and clear param descriptions make it sufficiently usable for a straightforward list operation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden for parameters. Every parameter is explained: resource_type includes examples, resource_id is identified, page states starting at 1, and page_size states max 1000 plus the full valid resource type list. This meaningfully exceeds the schema, which only provides titles and defaults.

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 first sentence 'List items related to a specific resource' states a clear verb and resource, and the parameter examples plus valid resource types make the target concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_configuration_relationships or get_contact_relationships, but the generic list behavior is understandable.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_configuration_relationships, get_contact_relationships, or create_related_item. The description provides valid resource types but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate choice.

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