fluig_process_search

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits but only states that it searches and supports a favorite filter. It omits details like whether results are paginated, sorted, or limited, and does not confirm read-only behavior.

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 two clear sentences with no extraneous words. Every part earns its place: the action and the parameter hint.

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 lack of output schema, the description should explain what is returned (e.g., list of process IDs, full objects). It does not address output format, sorting, or limits, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the favorite parameter's effect ('return only the user's favourites'), which is beyond the schema's 'Favourites only (optional)'. The content parameter is sufficiently described.

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 action ('Search processes by text') and resource ('processes'). It distinguishes from siblings like fluig_process_get or fluig_process_move, as this is a text-based search tool.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other process-related siblings (e.g., fluig_process_available, fluig_process_start). It only hints at the favorite parameter within the tool, not alternatives or exclusions.

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