graph_relationship

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description's 'Consulta' is consistent with a read-only operation. The description adds context about the kinds of relationships available, but does not disclose pagination behavior, permission requirements, or return shape. This is acceptable given annotation coverage, but not rich.

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 compact and front-loaded: a single sentence states the primary purpose, followed by a categorized list of example capability_id values. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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 relatively simple, but the absence of an output schema means the description should hint at return values, which it does not. It also does not explain how to choose among capability_id options or when to use this tool instead of a sibling graph tool. The examples help, but notable gaps remain for a generic relationship endpoint.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of documenting parameters. It clarifies capability_id with concrete examples and implies that id refers to a directory object, but leaves limit undefined. This is partial compensation, not complete.

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 ('Consulta relacionamentos') and resource ('objeto de diretório'), and enumerates specific relationship types (members, owners, transitive membership, app role assignments). The capability_id examples further bound the tool's scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling graph tools like graph_list or graph_query, so it is not a full 5.

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 no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and names no alternatives. The capability_id examples imply a usage pattern, but an agent is left to infer when this generic relationship query is preferable over the many specialized sibling tools.

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