get_process

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotent hint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral detail: ambiguous names return a typed error with candidate IDs instead of guessing. This goes beyond annotations and provides useful disambiguation 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 a single, well-constructed sentence that conveys all essential information without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately useful for an agent.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown but implied) and annotations cover safety, the description adequately covers retrieval method, disambiguation behavior, and parameter usage. It is complete for the tool's purpose, though it could mention that it is read-only (already in annotations).

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 description coverage is 100% (param described as 'a string that will be trimmed'). The description adds meaning by explaining the param can be a process ID or exact display name, which is not in the schema. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 specific action: 'Get one Huly Process workflow definition by process ID or exact display name.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('workflow definition'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_processes by emphasizing retrieval of a single definition.

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 specifies when to use this tool (by ID or exact display name) and what happens if the name is ambiguous (returns typed error with candidates). It does not explicitly compare to alternatives like list_processes, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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