peaka_get_relations

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavior beyond annotations by disclosing the response shape ('open-ended object map keyed by relation identifier') and the projectId discovery workflow, which helps the agent set expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core action first, then the use case, then response shape, then the prerequisite workflow. Every sentence adds distinct value, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Given the simple 2-parameter shape, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, why it matters, and how to obtain a required parameter. The only minor gap is that the open-ended response object's key/value structure is not elaborated further, but the description explicitly flags it as open-ended.

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 catalogId and projectId are fully documented in the schema and the description does not need to repeat their definitions. The description does add contextual guidance around projectId (use list_projects if unknown), but this is procedural rather than parameter-level semantics, leaving the baseline at 3.

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 precise verb and resource ('Get table relationships (foreign keys) for a catalog'), immediately distinguishing this from sibling metadata tools like peaka_list_tables and peaka_list_columns. It also adds the JOIN-construction use case, which clarifies exactly what kind of information the tool provides.

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 frames when the tool is useful ('when constructing JOINs') and explicitly instructs the agent to call peaka_list_projects first if projectId is unknown, including asking the user for confirmation. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the stated context is strong and actionable.

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