list_relationships

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that soft-deleted relationships are excluded by default, explains the include_deleted parameter, and mentions pagination via limit/offset. It does not cover auth needs or rate limits, but the behavioral details are sufficient for most use cases.

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 and well-structured. It starts with the main purpose, then details filtering options, a specific use case, default behavior, and pagination. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main use cases, filtering, and pagination. It mentions that each returned relationship carries its relationship_type, but does not describe the full output structure (e.g., source/target entity IDs). A brief note on the response format would improve completeness.

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%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between entity_id and direction, the use case for combining source_entity_id and target_entity_id, and the meaning of include_deleted. This goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 lists relationships for an entity or discovers relationship types between two specific entities. It distinguishes between filtering modes and provides a specific use case (discovery before deletion), differentiating it from sibling tools like create_relationship or delete_relationship.

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 explicit guidance on when to use entity_id with direction vs. source_entity_id/target_entity_id. It also includes a concrete example for discovering relationship type before deletion. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, which would elevate it to a 5.

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