fluig_process_version

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

No annotations provided. Description does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, or any behavioral traits beyond mentioning 'SOAP', which is a protocol detail rather than behavioral 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?

At 4 words, it is too terse. Clarity is sacrificed for brevity. No structure or front-loading of critical information.

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 tool with one parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify return value, behavior, or how the 'active version' concept is used.

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% with one parameter (processId) described as 'Process id.' The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description states 'Active version of a process (SOAP)', which indicates it deals with the active version but does not specify whether it retrieves, sets, or manages it. The verb is implicit. While not a tautology, it lacks specificity and does not differentiate from sibling tools like fluig_process_versions.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings such as fluig_process_versions or fluig_process_version_withdraw exist, but the description provides no context for selection.

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