query_spatial_relationships

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'Calculates' implies a non-mutating, read-only operation, and the list of relationship types gives some insight. However, it does not disclose return structure, how tolerance affects results, or behavior when compareNodeIds is omitted.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes: the verb, the scope, and the catalog of computed relationships. It remains readable despite enumerating many relationship types.

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?

The description covers what the tool computes but not the shape of the returned data, which matters because there is no output schema. It also does not clarify how the optional compareNodeIds and tolerancePx parameters affect the set or precision of results. Adequate for a basic understanding, but with clear gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; it mentions relationship types like distances and alignments, but tolerancePx and compareNodeIds semantics are left to the schema.

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 ('Calculates') and a precise resource ('2D canvas spatial relationships between nodes'), and enumerates the exact relationship types. This clearly differentiates it from sibling query tools like query_nodes or get_basic_info, which are more general-purpose.

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 tool is for spatial relationship queries, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. It provides no named sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the relationship vocabulary.

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