bw_get_process_variant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It clearly states the tool is read-only ('Read'), describes how unknown types are handled (oDetail as indented JSON), and explains the 'raw' format option. This provides sufficient behavioral insight.

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 paragraph with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose, then lists process types, input sourcing, and format options—each 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?

Given three parameters and no output schema, the description covers input sourcing, return format variants, and behavior for unknown types. It lacks explicit output structure details for each process type, but the format options and example of indented JSON provide adequate guidance.

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%, but the description adds critical context: it tells that process_type and variant_name come from specific fields in bw_get_process_chain output. For the format parameter, it clarifies the difference between 'text' and 'raw' beyond the enum values.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Read the detail configuration of a single Process Variant from a Process Chain step.' It lists specific process types and distinguishes from the sibling tool bw_get_process_chain by instructing where to obtain inputs.

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 explains when to use the tool: to read a process variant detail from a chain step. It explicitly ties inputs to the output of bw_get_process_chain. While it doesn't list negative conditions, the context is well-defined.

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