analyze_relationships

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only behavior is covered. The description adds the cross-collection scope but does not disclose what the analysis returns, what inputs trigger different behavior, or any operational constraints. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 short and easy to parse, but it reads as under-specified rather than deliberately concise. It contains no behavioral or return-value information that would help an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns or how the analysis is presented, but it does not. The ambiguity around sibling tools and the absence of usage guidance leave the description incomplete for reliable tool selection.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters, collection and includeSystemCollections, so structured coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already communicates.

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 names a specific action, 'analyze', and a resource, 'relationships', with the scope 'across collections'. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling analyze_collection_schema, so an agent may struggle to choose between them.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_collection_schema, validate_collection_schema, or search_tools. The description states only what the tool does, with no mention of conditions, exclusions, or better-suited alternatives.

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