Запустить бизнес-процесс

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating mutation but not destruction. Description adds that it executes a process and passes parameters via query string, but doesn't detail side effects or idempotency. The openWorldHint=true suggests unknown effects, but description doesn't compensate.

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?

Description is extremely concise, with only three sentences covering the core action, parameter passing mechanism, and optional result. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Given no output schema, description partially explains return (optional result parameter). However, it does not cover error handling, response format, or potential side effects for complex processes, leaving gaps for an agent.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. Description adds that parameters are passed via query string and result_parameter_name returns the specified output, but this is not a significant addition beyond schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states it runs custom business processes via ProcessEngineService.svc/{ProcessName}/Execute, with query-string parameters and optional result return. It distinguishes from CRUD tools by mentioning custom processes for complex logic, but could better differentiate from siblings like bpm_exec_process_element.

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?

Indicates the tool is for custom business processes wrapping complex logic, giving some context on when to use. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternatives (e.g., bpm_exec_process_element), so guidance is limited.

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