knowledge_relation_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it lists only explicit knowledge edges, but does not mention pagination, ordering, default scope behavior, whether the node parameter filters incoming/outgoing edges, or what an empty result looks like. As a read-only tool, safety is implied but not stated.

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, front-loaded with the core behavior ('List only explicit knowledge edges') and then optional filters. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 list tool with optional filters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete but lacks edge-case behavior: what happens when node is invalid, whether filtering by scope is a security boundary, and what count/format is returned. Given sibling tools related to knowledge relations, a sentence about this being the read counterpart to knowledge_relation_add/update/remove would strengthen routing.

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 covers node, actor, model, session, relation_type with descriptions, leaving scope with only a default and no detailed semantics. The description adds the concept of filtering by relation type/scope, but scope remains underspecified beyond 'all'. With 67% schema coverage, description does not need to repeat all params, yet adds value by framing the node as optional and the operation as filtered.

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?

Description names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('explicit knowledge edges'), and further clarifies scope: optionally incident to one node, filtered by relation type/scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling link-related tools like knowledge_relation_add/update/remove beyond phrasing, though 'canonical link-read path' hints at read purpose.

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 says it is the 'canonical link-read path,' which implies it is the default for listing explicit knowledge edges. It does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like knowledge_search or knowledge_browse, but the 'only explicit knowledge edges' phrase helps differentiate from other read paths. Lack of explicit exclusions keeps it short of a 5.

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