bw_get_dtp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returnable content (source, target, transformation settings, filter routines) and a performance trade-off versus the alternative, which is useful. However it does not state permission/auth requirements, whether the operation is strictly read-only, or any response-format caveats beyond what the schema's format enum implies.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the prerequisite lookup, then the cheaper alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it enumerates the returned definition contents and routes the agent to prerequisites and alternatives. The only gaps are auth/permission behavior and explicit confirmation that the call is non-mutating, which annotations would normally cover.

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%, including the format enum (text/raw) and a description for dtp_name, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description mentions filter fields and settings but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (DTP definition) and enumerates exactly what is retrieved: source, target, transformation, extraction settings, and filter fields. It also explicitly contrasts itself with bw_xref, so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing: use bw_xref on an aDSO to obtain the DTP name first, and use bw_xref with object_type=DTPA when only the owning process chain is needed. Both the when-to-use and the when-to-use-alternative are spelled out, including the performance reason ('faster and avoids loading the full DTP definition').

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