Discover Connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds operational context (requires open project with initialized engine) and clarifies that it returns only new connections not yet in the graph. No contradictions.

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 efficient sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, no redundant or unnecessary wording.

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 a single optional parameter, comprehensive annotations, and no output schema, the description covers prerequisite, usage alternatives, and the nature of results. It provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when and how to use the tool.

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?

The only parameter 'k' has a description in the schema that fully explains its purpose. The tool description adds no extra semantic information beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3 for 100% schema coverage.

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 'surface' and identifies the resource 'previously unrecorded relationships', with a clear method 'analyzing entity co-occurrence'. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools add_relationship and find_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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use this to find latent links to confirm with add_relationship; use find_relationships for known connections of a specific entity.' It also states the prerequisite 'Requires an open project with the relationship engine initialized.'

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