graph_relationship

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the domain context of what relationships are exposed but says nothing about pagination via limit, result shape, or whether traversal is transitive by default.

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?

Efficient structure: a single purpose sentence followed by a compact example list, with no filler. Slightly terse given the tool's breadth, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the full burden of explaining what is returned, how many items, and how limit affects traversal — none of which is stated. For a graph traversal tool with an open-ended capability_id, this is adequate but thin.

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% and no parameter is documented in the schema. The description partially compensates by giving valid capability_id example values, which is genuinely useful, but 'id' and 'limit' remain undefined, and the capability_id list is illustrative rather than authoritative.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it 'consulta relacionamentos de um objeto de diretório' and enumerates the relationship kinds (membros, owners, transitive membership, app role assignments). However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like graph_role_assignments, graph_permissions, or graph_query, which also surface role/relationship data.

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 capability_id examples implicitly convey what can be queried and thus hint at when to use the tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as graph_role_assignments or graph_query. Usage must be inferred from the example list.

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