List associations

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation by framing the operation as a read-only 'List' action. It adds useful context that the items are definitions/relationship types rather than record-level relations, but it does not disclose behavior beyond that, such as pagination limits, defaults, or whether the result set is exhaustive.

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 with no filler or redundant phrasing. The parenthetical adds meaningful clarification rather than repetition, and the core action and scope are front-loaded.

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?

For a simple, read-only list operation with all parameters optional, the description is largely sufficient: it states what is listed and in what scope. It does not describe pagination or return shape, but the schema supplies skip/limit defaults and the annotations cover the safety profile, so no critical information is missing.

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 33%; only locationId has a description in the schema. The tool description does not compensate by explaining skip or limit usage, nor does it add meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides for locationId.

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 ('List') and clearly identifies the resource as 'association definitions' scoped to a location. The parenthetical further clarifies what these definitions are ('relationship types available between record kinds'), which distinguishes this from sibling tools like ghl_get_record_relations that deal with actual relations between records.

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 indicates the tool lists association definitions in a location, but it does not explicitly say when to use this versus related tools such as ghl_get_record_relations, ghl_create_relation, or ghl_delete_relation. Usage context is implied rather than stated, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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