get_file_relationship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses pagination support and the scope of 41 relationship types, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe result structure, error conditions, or rate limits. This is a modest behavioral transparency for a query tool.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. The list of relationship categories is efficient and illustrative, with no redundant or filler text.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides purpose, pagination, and relationship types, but leaves gaps: it does not mention that limit and cursor are optional, does not describe return values or pagination mechanics, and does not differentiate from sibling relationship tools beyond the 'file' scope. It is adequate but not 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 50% (hash and relationship have descriptions; limit and cursor do not). The description adds meaning by listing relationship categories and mentioning pagination, but it does not explain how to use limit/cursor or the hash format. It partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') with a clear resource ('a specific relationship type for a file') and distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly scoping to files. It also provides concrete examples of relationship categories, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool ('detailed investigation of specific relationship types') and implies it is for file relationships specifically, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This is a clear context with no exclusions, meeting the '4' criterion.

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