Get record relations

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's job is to add non-obvious behavioral context. 'Participates in' hints that relations may be bidirectional, which is mildly useful, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, scoping nuances, or response characteristics beyond what schema and annotations imply.

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 with the verb and object front-loaded and no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation.

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 annotations and schema, the description covers the basic action but lacks disambiguation from a similarly named sibling and gives no sense of what a returned relation looks like. For a tool with no output schema and an openWorldHint, this is a notable gap.

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 only 25%, yet the description mentions none of the parameters. It does not compensate for the low coverage by explaining recordId, skip/limit pagination, or the locationId default, leaving the agent to infer meaning solely from names and schema defaults.

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 'List' as a specific verb and names 'relations' as the resource, scoped to 'a given record,' so an agent can understand this is a read operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling ghl_list_associations, whose name suggests a similar responsibility, so it misses a top score.

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 the use case: call it when you need the relations a particular record participates in. It provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the sibling list contains ghl_create_relation, ghl_delete_relation, and ghl_list_associations that could be confused with this tool.

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