relations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does disclose real behavioral traits: it returns both outgoing and 'derived incoming' relations and splits results into 'in force' vs 'superseded', implying temporal/versioning semantics. It says nothing about pagination, auth requirements, or result format, and never mentions the as_of parameter.

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?

A single tightly-packed sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded, though the dense jargon ('derived incoming', 'in force', 'superseded') trades brevity for ambiguity.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin: it never explains as_of, never clarifies what 'derived incoming' means, and cannot describe the return shape since no output schema exists.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only loosely covers 'id' via 'one stable ID' and gives no meaning at all for 'as_of', leaving half the parameters (including a non-obvious temporal filter) undocumented.

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 a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('outgoing and derived incoming relations') scoped to 'one stable ID', which is far more than a tautology. However, it does not differentiate itself from the read-oriented siblings get_entry or retrieve, and the meaning of 'derived incoming' is left unexplained.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling mutation tools set_relation / set_unresolved_relation that write the relations this tool reads. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Show'.

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