Related tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently explains the fallback mechanism: if no direct relations, it fetches the tool's primary category and returns other tools in that category (excluding input). This gives the agent clear expectations about behavior. However, it does not mention potential empty results or error conditions, which would make it a 5.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences covering primary purpose and fallback behavior with zero redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 has only 2 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It explains the core function, fallback, and parameter roles. However, it lacks an explicit statement about return format (e.g., an array of tool objects) which would make it entirely self-contained.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by indicating that the 'slug' parameter is used not only for finding relations but also for fallback category lookup. It also reaffirms the 'limit' parameter's purpose. This extra context elevates the score above baseline.

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 tool's purpose: 'Find tools related to a given slug.' It also describes the fallback behavior, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_catalog and get_tool. The verb 'Find' and resource 'tools' are specific and 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?

The description implies usage context (find related tools) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_catalog or browse_category. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided, so the agent must infer usage from the name and fallback explanation.

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