fluig_process_card_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read', implying no side effects, but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, auth needs, or error conditions. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb itself, achieving only baseline transparency.

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?

Two concise sentences, no redundancy. The first sentence states purpose, the second provides essential ordering guidance. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage context, and basic return format hint ('{field: value}'). It lacks details on pagination or field scope, but given the tool's simplicity, it is nearly complete.

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 single parameter processInstanceId has a schema description ('Instance number.') that is basic but present, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameter. Per guidelines, with high schema coverage, 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?

The description clearly states the tool reads the whole card of a running instance as field-value pairs. It uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('whole card'), and distinguishes from a potential sibling (fluig_process_card_value) by emphasizing 'WHOLE'. The ordering hint with fluig_process_move further clarifies its specific role.

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?

Explicitly advises to use this tool before fluig_process_move because moving replaces the card. This provides a specific when-to-use scenario, though it doesn't discuss other alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is clear and contextually relevant.

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