list_relations

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It explains canonicalization of relation types (precedes stored as follows with swapped ids), that filtering matches stored type, the limit cap, and use of next_offset for pagination. This is rich, specific context beyond basic functionality.

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 moderately detailed but every sentence adds value, starting with a clear one-line purpose followed by necessary behavioral warnings and pagination details. It is structured logically without redundancy, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 has no annotations or output schema, so the description must cover all essential aspects. It addresses purpose, canonicalization gotchas, filtering, and pagination. It does not detail the full response structure or include authentication/error handling, but for a list tool with three optional parameters, the provided context is quite complete.

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 0%, and the description compensates by explaining relation_type matches the stored canonical type and that limit is capped. It also connects offset to next_offset for paging. It doesn't detail all possible values of relation_type, but the examples and canonicalization warning add significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'List all relations across the instance' with optional type filtering. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_work_package_relations by emphasizing instance-wide scope and noting that relations do not change based on which work package's relations you view.

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 clear context by contrasting instance-wide listing with work-package-specific views, and it gives practical guidance on filtering and pagination. It does not explicitly name alternatives or specify when not to use it, but the scope is unambiguous.

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