graph_get_related

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 merely states '获取' (fetch), implying a read operation, but does not explicitly declare read-only behavior, auth requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to assess safety.

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 extremely concise, consisting of one purpose sentence and two parameter clarifications. No words are wasted. The structure is front-loaded with the main action. The only drawback is the slightly awkward grammar in the first sentence, but it remains efficient.

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 low complexity (2 parameters) and presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. However, it fails to mention whether any side effects occur or what the output represents. The behavioral gap leaves the agent with incomplete context for safe invocation. It is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 0%, making the description critical. It explains 'sctid' as '概念 sctid' and 'rel_types' as '关系类型列表，默认 [SPECIMEN_SOURCE_IDENTITY]', adding context beyond the bare schema fields. However, it does not enumerate allowed values for 'rel_types' or explain the default behavior fully. The added value is moderate but not comprehensive.

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 states the tool '获取概念的通过 RoleGroup 的定义关系及目标概念', which indicates fetching definition relations and target concepts via RoleGroup. However, the phrasing is somewhat ambiguous and does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'graph_search_concept', leaving the agent unclear about when to use this vs. search.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not explain prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The agent receives no help in deciding between this tool and 'graph_search_concept'.

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