guide_get_related_tests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that LLM-inferred edges are excluded unless include_inferred is true, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks details on performance, error handling, or what happens if the test_id does not exist.

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 that directly states the purpose. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could benefit from slightly more structure to improve readability.

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 is very brief and does not cover important context such as error cases, performance implications, or the nature of 'curated relationships'. More detail would help the agent use the tool effectively in complex scenarios.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the include_inferred parameter's default and behavior, but provides no additional meaning for test_id, max_depth, or relationship_types beyond their schema constraints.

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 uses a specific verb ('Traverse') and resource ('curated relationships from a test case'), clearly indicating the tool's function. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like guide_explain_relationship or guide_get_test, which could cause confusion when selecting the appropriate tool.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of include_inferred defaulting to false offers a subtle usage hint, but there is no context about prerequisites, when not to use, or recommended scenarios.

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