get_relationships

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, what types of relationships are included (direct vs. transitive), performance implications, or the output format. The presence of an output schema provides some structure but not behavioral context.

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, concise sentence with no filler words, and it is front-loaded with the key action. However, it is under-specified to the point of being minimally helpful. While conciseness is technically achieved, the description fails to convey necessary context, making it less effective than it could be.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (one parameter, no enums, but an output schema), the description should clarify what constitutes a 'relationship' and how it differs from other relationship tools. It does not mention the scope (direct or transitive), relationship types, or provide any usage context. The output schema covers return format, but the description leaves critical decisions to the agent's guesswork.

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 explain the parameter. The description mentions 'involving an element' which implies element_id is the element, but it does not clarify the expected format (e.g., UUID, path, name) or any constraints. The schema only provides the type and title, which is insufficient for an agent to correctly format the input.

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 states a clear action: 'Return all relationships involving an element.' It identifies the verb (return), resource (relationships), and the subject (element). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_allocations or describe_element, so an agent cannot distinguish when to prefer this over similar relationship-related tools without further inspection.

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. The description simply says it returns relationships, but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when a different tool would be more appropriate. Given the large sibling set with many relationship-related operations, this is a significant gap.

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