list_relationships

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses the output fields, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention side effects, permissions, or error behavior. The word 'Lists' implies a safe read, providing some value.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action ('Lists relationships') and efficiently packs the output details into a parenthetical. Every word contributes value, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 has a simple signature with one fully documented parameter and no output schema. The description specifies the fields returned in each relationship, which is adequate for a basic list tool. It does not mention return format or pagination, but for this low complexity, the description is reasonably 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 does not discuss the 'source' parameter; however, the input schema fully documents it with a clear explanation of the file vs erdId union. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Lists relationships' and specifies the components of each relationship (endpoint entity names, cardinality, identifying flag). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_entities and list_erds.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended usage is only implied by the name and the generic list verb, so it falls short of providing clear context.

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