db_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 of behavioral disclosure. It hints at a read-only operation by describing a display of relationships, but doesn't specify if it requires specific permissions, how it handles large datasets, or what the output format entails. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every part earns its place by stating the purpose and providing a key usage tip, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool has an output schema (which likely defines return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it partially compensates by clarifying parameter usage but leaves gaps in behavioral context and sibling differentiation. It's adequate for a simple read tool but could be more complete.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema: it explains that omitting the 'table' parameter shows all relationships, clarifying the optional nature and effect of this parameter. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well for the lack of schema details, though it doesn't fully document both parameters (e.g., 'connection_id' is not explained).

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 states the tool shows 'foreign key relationships', which indicates its purpose, but it's vague about the exact action (e.g., list, retrieve, display) and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'db_schema' or 'db_describe', which might also provide database structural information. It mentions omitting a table to show all, adding some specificity but not enough for clear differentiation.

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 provides minimal guidance: it says to omit the table parameter to show all relationships, implying usage for a specific table or all tables. However, it offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'db_schema' or 'db_describe', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent with little context for decision-making.

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