get_file_relationship

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

The description discloses pagination support, a behavioral trait. With no annotations, this is helpful but minimal. It does not mention error handling, authentication, or read-only nature (though implied by 'Query').

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?

Two sentences: one functional, one illustrative. No fluff or repetition. Efficiently packed with key info.

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 schema and sibling tools, the description covers purpose, relationship variety, and pagination. No output schema is provided, but the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role relative to others. Minor gap: no example of expected return structure.

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 coverage is 50% (hash and relationship have descriptions). The description adds context for relationship types ('behaviors, network connections, dropped files...') and mentions pagination, but does not explain limit/cursor semantics beyond the schema defaults. Adequate but not compensating fully for uncovered parameters.

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 queries a specific relationship type for a file with pagination support. The verb 'Query' and resource 'relationship type for a file' are specific. Sibling tools like 'get_file_report' and 'get_domain_relationship' differentiate it clearly.

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 mentions it is useful for detailed investigation of specific relationship types, which implies usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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