analyze_act_relationships

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool 'returns information' but does not explicitly mention that it is read-only or has no side effects. For a query tool, this is acceptable but could be more explicit about impact (e.g., no state changes).

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 concise, with a brief summary followed by illustrative examples. The structure is clear, though the examples partially replicate the schema's parameter list, making it slightly redundant.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and usage context. Minor gaps: no mention of error handling or edge cases like invalid ELI formats, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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 schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, including the valid relationship_type values and the ELI format. The tool description adds usage examples but no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already contains.

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's function: analyzing relationships and references between legal acts. It names the specific resource (powiązania i referencje) and provides examples of distinct relationship types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_act_details or search_legal_acts.

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 includes concrete examples for different relationship_type values, making the intended use implicit. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'use this when you need to see amendments' or 'not for full act content').

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