analyzeRelationshipPatterns

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, closed-world), and the description adds meaningful non-obvious context beyond them: the analysis is queued asynchronously and 'may invoke the configured LLM,' signaling latency/cost implications. It does not state whether repeated calls duplicate work, a minor gap.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the required follow-up step. No filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema present, return values needn't be explained; the description still conveys the async queue-and-poll model and the LLM dependency. Sufficient for correct invocation, though it could clarify whether re-invocation is idempotent.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric this is the baseline 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to describe or compensate for.

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 ('Queue schema analysis') and resource ('relationship pattern suggestions') for a defined scope ('the current project'). It is clearly distinguishable from listRelationshipPatterns, which it explicitly designates for a different purpose (inspecting status/suggestions).

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?

Names the companion tool and the follow-up action ('Poll listRelationshipPatterns to inspect completion status'). This gives clear context on where this tool sits in the workflow, though it stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions.

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