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. Fully describes what is read (header, scheduling, steps, statuses, dependencies, branch conditions, variants), the default behavior, and what steps lack detail. Implicitly indicates read-only by using 'Read'.

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 relatively long but every sentence adds meaningful information. Front-loaded with the main purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description explains return value structure comprehensively (header, steps, dependencies, variants). Covers complex aspects like branch conditions and step types without detail. No apparent gaps.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds extra value: chain_name is case-insensitive, format explains output types, include_variant_details explains trade-off. Adds context beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states it reads a Process Chain definition, enumerating all included components (header, steps, dependencies, variants). Distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying alternatives for specific step types (bw_get_dtp, bw_get_process_chain).

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?

Provides guidance on when to use include_variant_details=true/false and suggests using bw_search first to find chain names. Could be more explicit about when to prefer this tool over other getters, but the alternatives for step types are helpful.

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