Api entities graph retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes nothing beyond that — it does not say what nodes/edges are returned, whether data is scoped to the current tenant, or what the 'showing:' list would have contained.

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?

It is short, but short because it is truncated — the sentence ends on a colon with no list following. Structurally broken rather than concise; the fragment conveys less than a single complete sentence would.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description is the only source of information about the response, and it provides none — no shape of graph data, no indication of which entities are included, no hint about scale or scoping. An agent cannot predict the return value at all.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The dangling 'showing:' implies fields that are never enumerated, but with no parameters this is the baseline-4 case.

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 states a verb and resource ('Generate graph data for entities'), so the basic purpose is recoverable, but it is cut off mid-sentence at 'showing:' and offers no differentiation from siblings like assets_graph_retrieve or requirement_mapping_sets_graph_data_retrieve, which do analogous graph work on other resources.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the many other graph/retrieve endpoints, no prerequisites, and no mention of what the graph represents (entity hierarchy, ecosystem map, DORA chain). The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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