get_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 implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not state what happens when the diagram parameter is omitted, whether the operation is safe, or what error conditions might arise. The behavior around the configured diagram source is entirely hidden.

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?

A single, compact sentence that immediately states the operation, target, and a key output detail. There is no waste or redundant information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only mentions cardinality without describing the return structure, pagination, or behavior when no relationships exist. Given the tool's moderate complexity and absence of annotations, the definition leaves too much for the agent to discover at runtime.

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 both parameters already have adequate structured documentation. The description adds the 'cardinality information' return context but does not clarify the relationship between the diagram and entityName parameters or the fallback behavior of diagram. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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' with a clear resource: relationships between entities in the ER diagram, and adds the distinguishing feature 'cardinality information.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_entities and get_entity_details, which target entities or entity details rather than 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_entities or get_entity_details. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or the optional diagram source fallback, so an agent must infer usage from the name and the schema.

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