deployment_list_resource_requests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond duplicating the annotation title as an endpoint path: it does not explain pagination behavior, what a 'request' row contains, or the effect of inprogressRequests. With annotations carrying the load, this is still a thin contribution.

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 lines that are appropriately brief and front-loaded, but the second line is pure duplication of the annotation title's endpoint path and earns no space. Short overall but partly redundant rather than genuinely efficient.

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?

This is a read-only list tool with an existing annotation safety profile and full schema coverage, so expectations are moderate. Still, with 9 parameters containing ambiguous pagination/sort pairs and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without any explanation of the return shape or the parameter interactions it must resolve.

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% across all 9 parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning for resourceId, pagination, or sorting, and does not resolve the overlapping semantics of top vs size or sort vs orderby.

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 gives a verb and resource ("Get all requests for a resource") and appends the raw HTTP path. However, that restates the tool name and the annotation title rather than adding distinguishing detail. It does not differentiate this from nearby siblings such as deployment_get_deployment_requests or deployment_get_request.

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 use this tool instead of deployment_get_deployment_requests, deployment_get_request, or deployment_get_request_events. An agent must infer selection from the name alone, and the description gives no prerequisites or exclusions.

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