fm_infer_relationships

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: the tool produces inferred results (not definitive), results may differ from actual FileMaker definitions, and confidence scores should be checked. This covers the speculative nature and reliability aspects. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides critical behavioral warnings. Every sentence earns its place by adding essential information. It's front-loaded with the core function and avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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's moderate complexity (inference-based analysis), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the core functionality and reliability caveats. However, it doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., format of inferred relationships, confidence scale) or potential error conditions, leaving some gaps for a tool without structured output documentation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (layout and depth). The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'portals and field name patterns' which relates to the layout parameter, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'infer relationships from specified layout's portals and field name patterns' (verb+resource). It distinguishes from siblings like fm_get_layout_metadata or fm_analyze_portal_data by focusing on relationship inference rather than metadata retrieval or data analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., fm_export_database_metadata might also involve relationships).

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 implies usage context through the warning about results being 'inferences' that may differ from actual FileMaker relationship definitions and the instruction to check confidence. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like fm_get_layout_metadata (which might provide actual relationship data) or fm_analyze_portal_data. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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