list_related

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 explains what the tool returns, the variety of relation types, page-level scoping, and even interprets the semantic meaning of `prev`. It doesn't discuss errors or auth, but with an output schema present and no risky side effects indicated, the key behavior is sufficiently transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core action and resource in the first sentence. The second sentence gives concrete use cases, and the third provides a terse but valuable hint about `prev`. No sentence is wasted, and the length is appropriate for the number of relation types covered.

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 presence of a detailed input schema, an output schema, and a moderately complex set of relation kinds, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and call the tool correctly. It explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, and adds practical relation semantics without needing to restate structured schema details.

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 already covers all three parameters fully at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the practical meaning of `prev` in the context of prerequisites and by framing the overall result as a 'typed neighbourhood', giving semantic cohesion to the relation enums.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return the typed neighbourhood of a documentation page' and then enumerates the exact relation kinds returned. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like search_docs, fetch_document, compare_versions, and list_products, which concern searching, fetching content, comparing versions, and listing products respectively.

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 gives concrete use cases: when a page assumes a prerequisite you have not read, or when you need to confirm which product versions document a behaviour. It also provides a practical hint that `prev` is the best signal for prerequisites. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives, so it stops just short of a 5.

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