list_asset_relations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, but it only states a read-only 'List' operation. It does not disclose pagination behavior, how the optional relation_type filter affects output, relation direction, or response shape, leaving the agent to infer important behavioral details.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and object immediately, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope.

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 list tool, the description plus the input schema is minimally viable for invoking the tool with an asset_id. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent still cannot anticipate the response format, pagination, or edge-case behavior, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters: asset_id is described as 'The asset UUID' and relation_type as 'Filter by relation type'. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much, but it also adds no additional semantic nuance beyond 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?

Description uses a specific action ('List'), a specific resource ('all relations'), and a clear scope ('for an asset'), so the core purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as list_relation_types, but the asset-scoped phrasing prevents most confusion.

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, nor are there any exclusions or recommended sibling tools. The only implicit clue is that an asset_id is required, but no context about relation types or when this list is preferable is provided.

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