get_allocations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys a read-only nature (List) and the directional scope (from and to), but does not disclose potential edge cases, performance implications, or whether the element must be of a specific type. The description is honest but incomplete.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, with no redundant information. It is highly efficient and readable.

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 is simple (one param, output schema exists), so the description covers the basics. However, the absence of usage guidance and limited behavioral detail (e.g., what happens if no relationships exist, whether it includes inherited allocations) leaves gaps for an agent to confidently invoke it. An output schema exists, so return format is not required, but the tool would benefit from a note about its relationship to get_relationships.

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 provides only the parameter name 'element_id' with no description (coverage 0%). The description adds meaning by clarifying that the element is the focus of allocations in both directions, which goes beyond the bare schema. However, it does not specify the exact role (source or target) beyond implying both, leaving some ambiguity.

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 the action (List), the resource (Allocate relationships), and the scope (from and to an element). It distinguishes from siblings like get_relationships (which lists all relationship types) and create_allocation (which creates). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large sibling set, especially get_relationships which likely overlaps, the description fails to explain why an agent would choose this over that. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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