bw_list_process_chain_last_status

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden. It explicitly states it is a read operation, includes chains that never ran, returns one row per chain, and allows filtering. It does not mention permissions or rate limits, but the described behavior is transparent enough for a read-only listing tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output fields. The second sentence adds important edge cases (never-run chains) and filter options. No wasted words; every sentence is essential and clear.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the output content (fields listed), optional filters, and references a sibling for drill-down. It handles edge cases (chains that never ran) and mentions optional date range filtering. This is complete for its complexity.

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. The description adds value by explaining that the log_id can be used to drill down with a sibling tool and provides format hints for date parameters (ISO format with example). This extra context helps the agent use the parameters correctly.

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 it reads the latest execution status and scheduling state for every process chain, one row per chain. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it returns aggregate per-chain info and mentions using bw_get_process_chain_run_detail for drill-down, showing clear differentiation.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when you need an overview of all chains with their latest status, scheduling, and optional filtering by status or date. It also suggests an alternative (bw_get_process_chain_run_detail) for drilling into a specific run. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it relative to other siblings like bw_get_process_chain, but the distinction is implicit.

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