get_item_relationships

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the full burden. It adds 'both directions' as a behavioral nuance, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, ordering, or what constitutes a 'relationship'. For a getter, this is minimal coverage and leaves ambiguity about the response.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the verb, resource, and scope efficiently.

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 is simple (one param, no output schema), but the description still has gaps. It does not clarify what relationship types are included, the nature of 'both directions', or the response shape. It is adequate for a basic getter but leaves room for confusion given the variety of relationship-related sibling tools.

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 covers item_id with 100% coverage but the description 'item_id parameter' is tautological. The tool description clarifies that item_id identifies the item whose relationships are retrieved, adding a bit of meaning. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description does not significantly exceed it.

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 ('Get'), a clear resource ('relationships for an item'), and defines scope ('both directions'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_blocking_items (specific relationship type) and add_relationship/remove_relationship (write operations).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies this is the general-purpose relationship getter, but it does not explicitly mention sibling tools like get_blocking_items or set_parent, nor does it state exclusions.

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