get_table_relationships

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It states the tool returns discovered foreign-key relationships, implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose whether the discovery involves computation, caching, or any side effects. No details about result limits or behavior are provided.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundant information. It gets straight to the point and is easy to read.

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 low-complexity with one parameter and no output schema, but the description is still quite minimal. It does not explain the structure of the response, whether the relationships are exhaustive, or what 'discovered' means operationally. For a simple getter, this is borderline sufficient, but it leaves some contextual gaps.

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 has one required parameter, knowledge_base_id, with no description (0% schema coverage). The description only mentions 'in a knowledge base,' which weakly ties the parameter to its role but does not explain its format, uniqueness, or how to obtain its value. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter name.

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 that the tool provides discovered foreign-key style relationships between tables within a knowledge base. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_table_details or list_kb_tables, which focus on individual tables. However, the phrase 'Discovered' is a past-participle and lacks an imperative verb, making it slightly less direct than an explicit 'Get' or 'List'.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or typical scenarios. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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