listRelationshipPatterns

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include suggestions with lifecycle status, schema relationship summaries and the latest analysis status, plus project scoping, though pagination and result limits are unmentioned.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and each earns its place. The return-content sentence partially duplicates the output schema, which slightly dilutes efficiency.

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 parameterless, read-only list tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, workflow placement and returned content adequately. Nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing, though ordering or freshness of the analysis status could be clarified.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly implies the call is scoped implicitly to the current project.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List inferred relationship patterns for the current project'), with the scope of the listing named and clearly separable from the sibling mutation tools approve/ignore/deleteRelationshipPattern and the analyzeRelationshipPatterns trigger.

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?

'Use this before approving, ignoring, or deleting a relationship pattern' gives an explicit workflow trigger that maps onto the sibling tools. It states when to use it but does not name the alternatives directly or describe when the tool is unnecessary.

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