iaas_get_request_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the GET path in the description adds nothing new. There is no disclosure of what the returned graph looks like, whether it can be large/paginated, or what happens if the flowId is unknown.

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?

Short and front-loaded, but the second line, a bare REST path, duplicates the annotation title and consumes a line without adding agent-relevant information.

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, the description is the only place to convey what a "request graph" contains, and it says nothing about the shape, depth, or semantics of the returned graph. For a tool whose headline concept is undefined, this is a material gap.

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% with all three parameters (flowId, deploymentId, apiVersion) documented inline, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description contributes no additional meaning such as where flowId/deploymentId come from or how apiVersion affects the response.

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 restates the tool name ("Get Request Graph") plus a container phrase ("For Provisioning Request") and the raw REST path. It never explains what a request graph is, nor does it distinguish this from numerous nearby siblings such as iaas_get_request_tracker, iaas_get_request_trackers, or deployment_get_request. That is close to tautology.

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 on when to call this versus the request-tracker siblings, no prerequisites, and no mention of whether a deployment or provisioning request must be in a particular state. Usage must be fully inferred by the agent.

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