get_relation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'get,' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly confirm safety, side effects, or prerequisites. The vague phrase 'enhanced properties' doesn't clarify behavior, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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, concise sentence that communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, and every word earns its place.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description should explain what is returned, especially the vague 'enhanced properties.' It doesn't specify the response format, what 'enhanced' means, or whether any filtering or sorting applies. This is a significant gap for an agent needing to understand the tool's output.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters (from, to, relationType) with descriptions, and schema_description_coverage is 100%. The description adds no meaning beyond 'specific relation,' so the baseline 3 applies.

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's function: retrieving a specific relation with enhanced properties from the Memento knowledge graph. It uses a specific verb ('get') and names the resource ('specific relation'), making it distinct from mutation or history tools like create_relations or get_relation_history, though it does not explicitly compare to alternatives.

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 clear context: this tool is for retrieving a specific relation. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the purpose is obvious enough for basic selection among the sibling tools.

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