p6_get_relationships

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description rightly focuses elsewhere: it discloses the pagination contract (page shape with total/offset/returned/next_offset) and the non-obvious lag_rule calendar-conversion behavior. That is real behavioral context beyond structured fields, though it does not cover errors or empty-result behavior.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the resource and page shape come first, then parameter semantics. Every clause carries information, though the return-field list and the lag sentences could be labeled more clearly (they read like fragments rather than an organized parameter/return block).

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the page fields and explains lag_rule, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, it never says what each row contains (relationship type, successor ID), whether direction=both duplicates rows, or that task_code alone may be ambiguous across projects.

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 description coverage is 80%, so limit/offset/project/task_code are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning only for direction (pred/succ/both), and even there it restates the enum literals without expanding the pred/succ abbreviations, so it barely exceeds the 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?

States the resource precisely ("Relationships of an activity") and scopes it ("one page"), which clearly separates it from siblings like p6_get_activity or p6_query_activities. It never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, but the resource is 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 never says when to call this tool versus p6_get_activity, p6_critical_path, or p6_float_analysis, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g., that an activity's task_code is needed). The only guidance is indirect, via the direction parameter values.

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