fluig_process_activities_resume

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so unusually well: it discloses a known production bug, the exact exception (javax.ejb.EJBException), that it is parameter-independent, which example processes fail vs. succeed, and a workaround. This is exactly the operational behavior an agent needs before calling.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then the route caveat, then the bug block with workaround — every sentence carries signal. It is dense but not padded; minor length from the bug example list keeps it just short of ideal.

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?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema diagnostic tool, it covers purpose, failure modes and fallbacks thoroughly. It stops short of describing the shape of the heatmap response (activity keys, SLA counter fields), which would fully close the 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents env, processId, processVersion and interactives thoroughly. The description adds only the note that expand/interactives are accepted here, and mentions an 'expand' concept not present in the schema, which adds marginal clarity. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource and computation: a per-activity heatmap of how many instances are stuck, with SLA counters, framed as answering 'where the flow is jammed' in one call. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the '/resume' sibling routes it references.

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?

Makes the use case explicit (diagnose where a process is stuck) and names concrete alternatives plus the condition that selects them: on the EJBException bug, fall back to fluig_task_list/fluig_request_list filtered by process. It also notes only this /resume route accepts expand/interactives.

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