fluig_request_get

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read, and the returned identifiers are named, but nothing is said about permissions, behavior when the processInstanceId does not exist, the env targeting implications, or what else the payload contains.

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?

Two tight sentences: identity of the resource first, then the downstream workflow. Every clause carries information, and the key 'process → form' framing is front-loaded.

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 annotations, the description would ideally characterize the full return payload and failure modes. It names only the two identifiers it yields plus the follow-up tools, leaving the rest of the solicitação shape unstated.

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 100%, with the env parameter richly documented including the no-default rationale, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that processInstanceId identifies the solicitação and mentions formRecordId/formId as outputs rather than parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (fetch a solicitação by processInstanceId) and lists the identifiers it surfaces (formRecordId, formId). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly named siblings fluig_process_card_get / fluig_process_card_value, which an agent would likely confuse with it.

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?

Gives a concrete follow-up chain: take the formRecordId from here and read the data with fluig_card_children_get / fluig_card_list. That is real routing guidance, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over fluig_request_list or fluig_process_card_get.

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