rca_graph_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It usefully discloses the not_found error condition for nonexistent graphs or graphs belonging to another user, and it specifies the return type as a string in the requested format. This is consistent with the annotations and adds meaningful behavioral detail.

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 well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a format-guidance line, an Args block, and a Returns block. It is front-loaded and free of filler. The format list slightly overlaps with the schema enum, but the added semantic explanations justify the 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 simple read-only retrieval tool, this description is largely complete: it states the resource, the available formats, and the error behavior. It does not mention token or client_id in the Args list, but the schema provides those details and annotations cover the safety profile, so the agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description explains graph_id and adds meaningful semantics to the format values ('full node/edge detail', 'Graphviz source', 'simple mapping'). However, it omits the required token parameter and the client_id namespace parameter, and context signals indicate 0% schema description coverage, so the description does not fully compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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: 'Retrieve a causal graph's current state.' It also distinguishes among three output formats (json, dot, adjacency), making the tool's purpose concrete and differentiable from sibling tools like rca_graph_create, rca_graph_delete, and rca_graph_list_versions.

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 gives clear format-selection guidance: use 'json' for programmatic inspection, 'dot' for Graphviz rendering, and 'adjacency' for a simple source->targets mapping. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with an alternative, but the retrieval intent is clear enough for an agent to select it over mutation or versioning siblings.

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