fluig_process_available

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only states the basic purpose. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as caching, scope restrictions, or return format. The simplicity of the tool (no parameters, likely read-only) makes this adequate.

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 a single sentence starting with a verb, containing no unnecessary words. It conveys the core functionality efficiently.

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 there is no output schema, the description should hint at what the returned data contains (e.g., process IDs, names). Without that, the agent may not know how to use the result. The description is minimally complete but lacks output details.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema fully covers them (100% coverage). According to the rubric, zero parameters warrant a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 action (List) and resource (processes) with a specific scope (the logged-in user is allowed to start). This sharply distinguishes it from sibling tools like fluig_process_start (starts a process) and fluig_process_search (searches processes).

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 implies the tool is for checking which processes can be started before calling fluig_process_start, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like fluig_process_available_users.

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