akb_relations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the scope (same-vault only), the cross-type nature of results, and the explicit/implicit classification per row. It doesn't mention auth needs, rate limits, or potential absence of results, which leaves some transparency gap for a read operation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then output details, then the edge-classification nuance. Every sentence contributes value with no filler or repetition.

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 read-only filtering tool of this complexity, the description covers what the tool returns, the scope, and the key distinction between explicit and implicit links. With no output schema, the description partially explains the return shape. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly, though a brief note on when no relations are expected would make it fully complete.

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 coverage is 67%, so the schema already documents uri, type, and direction. The description adds useful context about resource categories ('document, table, or file') but does not explain the semantics of each relation type or direction values beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the moderate coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource scope ('Get relations for any resource (document, table, or file)') and adds differentiating detail: same-vault cross-type connections and explicit vs implicit edges. This sets it apart from siblings like akb_graph and akb_provenance.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: call this when you need relations for a resource. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related siblings (e.g., akb_graph, akb_provenance) or when not to use it.

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