Follow Source Relationships

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one meaningful trait—'No relationships are inferred'—but does not explain traversal direction, depth, whether the entry itself is included, or how the optional type filter affects results. This is thin for a graph-relationship tool.

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 short sentences convey the core operation and the most important behavioral caveat without waste. Every phrase earns its place, and the main action is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description is minimally viable but leaves notable gaps: no output schema exists, and the description does not clarify whether results are paginated, ordered, include the source entry, or traverse the graph only one level. The agent can call it, but not fully anticipate the result shape.

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 schema already documents both parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond 'connected to one entry' mapping loosely to the required id, and the type filter is only documented in 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 ('Get'), names the resource ('entries connected to one entry'), and identifies the authoritative source ('official Beautiful Trouble source graph'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_entry, which returns a single entry, and search_toolbox, which implies flexible search.

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 when to use the tool: when the agent needs explicitly curated official source relationships. The explicit 'No relationships are inferred' is a useful exclusion, but the description does not name alternatives or state when another tool should be chosen instead.

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