bw_get_process_chain

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses default behavior of fetching variant details, steps without detail, and that include_variant_details=false provides faster structural overview. It does not mention potential timeouts or rate limits but is otherwise transparent.

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?

Description is front-loaded with a summary sentence, then details on default behavior and exceptions. Every sentence provides value, though slightly wordy. Well-structured and informative.

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?

No output schema, but description lists all components: header, scheduling/monitoring, steps, edges, and variant details. It addresses missing detail for some step types and redirects to alternative tools. Complete enough for an AI agent to understand the return scope.

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% (baseline 3). Description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining default behavior of include_variant_details, what happens for steps without variant detail, and providing context for format parameter (human-readable vs raw JSON). Adds significant value.

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 a Process Chain definition and lists components. It uses a specific verb 'Read' and resource 'Process Chain definition', and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning alternatives for specific step types and suggesting bw_search for finding chain names.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use this tool (to get full definition) and when not (for DTP_LOAD steps use bw_get_dtp, for CHAIN steps use recursively). Also suggests bw_search to find chain names first and explains trade-off of include_variant_details parameter.

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