get_relationships

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool 'Return' data, implying a read operation, but fails to mention any traits like idempotency, required permissions, rate limits, or whether it is safe to use repeatedly. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it sacrifices necessary detail.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not hint at the structure or format of the returned relationships. For a tool that returns 'cross-schema relationships', more context is needed (e.g., what relationship attributes are included, pagination, or filtering). The 0% schema coverage for parameters also contributes to incompleteness.

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%, yet the description omits any explanation of the two parameters ('entity' and 'include_inbound'). It does not clarify what 'entity' represents or how 'include_inbound' affects results. Without this, an AI agent cannot correctly invoke the tool with intended values.

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 the tool returns cross-schema relationships using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('cross-schema relationships'), and identifies the source ('x-weclapp.entity references'). While the term 'x-weclapp.entity references' may be cryptic to new users, it is likely domain-specific and differentiates from sibling tools like 'explain_entity' or 'probe_entity_sample'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, making it difficult for an AI agent to decide between 'get_relationships' and siblings like 'check_field_presence' or 'explain_data_location'.

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