get_work_package_relations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'Get all relations', implying a read-only, safe operation. While adequate for a simple retrieval tool, it does not disclose potential outcomes like empty results, error handling for invalid IDs, or any side effects. It meets minimum expectations but adds no extra transparency.

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 consists of two short, focused sentences. The first explains the tool's purpose, and the second clarifies the parameter format. Every sentence is necessary and efficient. No redundancy or fluff.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics. However, it does not explain the return format (e.g., list of relation objects with types) or behavior for invalid IDs, leaving some gaps for a model to infer.

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 input schema has one parameter (work_package_id) with no description field (0% coverage). The description adds meaningful context: it accepts internal id or display_id format, and explicitly excludes UI display numbers. This provides value beyond the schema, though additional details like accepted string patterns or examples could further improve semantics.

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 retrieves all relations for a work package, listing examples like blocks, relates to, duplicates. The verb 'Get' and resource 'relations for a work package' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_relations, which might list all relations globally, but the context of scoping to a work package provides implicit differentiation.

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 provides guidance on the parameter format (internal id or display_id) and clarifies not to use the UI display number. However, it offers no explicit context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_relations or get_work_package. Usage is implied but lacks when-not and alternative recommendations.

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