analyze_bpmn_lanes

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

The description declares 'Read-only', consistent with readOnlyHint=true, and goes beyond the annotations by disclosing what each mode returns (lane names, coherence score, reasoning; issues with fix suggestions; recommendation with confidence). It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or failure modes, but the safety profile is fully covered.

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 purpose is front-loaded, then the three modes are enumerated compactly with their return shapes, ending with the sibling routing. It is longer than most descriptions but nearly every clause carries distinct information; only the repeated mode naming is slightly redundant.

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 compensates by describing the return payload for each mode. Three parameters, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations are all accounted for, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the enum values and diagramId/participantId are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning the schema lacks: that 'suggest' keys off roles (camunda:assignee/candidateGroups) or human-vs-automated element types, and that participantId scopes 'suggest' and 'validate'.

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 ('Analyze lane organization in a BPMN diagram') and enumerates the three distinct modes with what each produces. It explicitly separates itself from the sibling create_bpmn_lanes, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Each mode carries an explicit condition for use ('suggest' for assignment proposals, 'validate' for checking current organization, 'pool-vs-lanes' for the pool/lane decision). It also names the alternative for mutation ('to assign or redistribute elements use create_bpmn_lanes'), giving both when-to-use and when-not-to-use.

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