bw_get_process_chain_run_detail

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the tool is read-only ('Read') and details the output structure. Does not disclose any limitations or restrictions beyond the data returned, but for a read operation this is sufficient.

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?

Concise 4-sentence description with no filler. Purpose is stated first, followed by key details and prerequisites. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Without output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers what is returned (steps, messages, relationships). Could include more detail on ordering or number of steps, but sufficient for agent understanding.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates the origin of parameters and adds a usage context, but does not provide new semantic meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states 'Read the execution detail of one process chain run' and enumerates exactly what is included: process steps with type, variant, status, timestamps, predecessor graph edges, and message log. It differentiates from sibling tools like bw_get_process_chain and bw_list_process_chain_runs.

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 explicit use case: 'Use this to diagnose a failed run' and specifies where to obtain input parameters (from bw_list_process_chain_runs or bw_list_process_chain_last_status). Does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the context is clear.

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