card_relations

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds a deduplication behavior ('同一关系保留一份 Adapter 文本'), which is useful beyond the annotations, but it does not explain error behavior, scoping effects, or what 'Adapter 文本' means.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary return purpose, but the second clause is cryptic and the overall phrasing is too abbreviated to be fully useful. It is concise, but the ambiguity of 'Adapter 文本' prevents a higher score.

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?

While the output schema covers return values and annotations cover read-only safety, the description fails to explain the required 'id' parameter, the optional 'scope' parameter, or what counts as 'candidate tools'. For a two-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, this is a significant completeness 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 0%, and the description does not clarify the meaning of 'id' or 'scope' beyond the schema field names. Since the schema provides no descriptions and the description does not compensate, the agent has insufficient parameter semantics to reliably invoke the tool.

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 states a specific verb ('返回' / returns) and resource: outgoing, incoming, and candidate tools for a card relation. This distinguishes the tool's role from mutation-focused siblings like card_set_relation and card_remove_relation, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as catalog_graph, card_describe, or card_set_relation. The description simply states what is returned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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