alterios_validate_process_result

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Read and validate' implies safe read but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or return behavior. Minimal behavioral insight.

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?

Extremely concise but at the expense of completeness. A single phrase is insufficient for a tool with 7 parameters. The structure is not front-loaded with key details.

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 7 undocumented parameters, no parameter descriptions, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (not described), the description is severely incomplete. It does not help an agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation for any of the 7 parameters. Users cannot interpret parameter meaning or defaults (e.g., expected_completed, expected_error_absent).

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 has a specific verb ('Read and validate') and resource ('process completion/error state'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like alterios_start_process (mutation) and other validation tools (e.g., alterios_validate_form_contract).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for validation and process management, the absence of usage context makes selection difficult.

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