get_work_package_relations

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses important behaviors: the type/from_id/to_id fields reflect stored relations not the original request due to canonicalization, relation direction may be swapped, and pagination requires passing next_offset beyond the limit cap. This is critical non-obvious information that goes well beyond the schema.

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 well-structured, starting with a clear one-sentence purpose, then explaining id format, relation canonicalization, and pagination. Each sentence adds necessary context for using the tool correctly, with no fluff. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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 description covers all key aspects needed to use the tool effectively: what it returns (relations with type/from_id/to_id), how to interpret direction, pagination behavior, and id format. Although no output schema exists, the description gives enough detail about the response fields and next_offset to understand the return shape.

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 description adds significant meaning to parameters: work_package_id is explained with examples (internal id vs display_id vs UI display number), limit is explained with its cap, and offset is explained as needing to be set to the returned next_offset. Since schema coverage is 0%, this compensation is essential and well-executed.

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 gets all relations for a work package, listing example relation types (blocks, relates to, duplicates). The verb 'get' and resource 'work package relations' are specific, and the description distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_relations by focusing on a single work package.

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 when to use the tool (when you need relations for a specific work package) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using list_relations for all relations globally. The guidance on id formats and canonicalization is useful context but does not address when to choose this tool over siblings.

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