get_process_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Gets'), which is appropriate, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it returns partial data. It adds some context about what information is included but lacks operational details.

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 description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by bulleted usage guidelines, and ends with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers purpose, usage, and basic parameter semantics, but lacks details on return format, error handling, and behavioral constraints. Without annotations or output schema, more completeness would be beneficial for safe invocation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents the single parameter 'process_id' with a brief explanation ('The ID of the process'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's basic type. However, it doesn't specify format, constraints, or examples, leaving some gaps in parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with the verb 'Gets' and resource 'detailed information about a specific process'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_processes' (which lists processes) and 'get_work_item_type' (which focuses on work item types), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated.

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?

The description provides explicit usage scenarios: viewing process properties/configuration, getting work item types, and checking if it's the default. This gives clear context for when to use it. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'list_processes' for overview vs. details).

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