list_processes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose that only .bpmn files receive a one-line summary covering pools, activities, and gateways. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how Bizagi files are treated beyond being found, or how empty folders or invalid directories behave.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences followed by compact Args lines. Every sentence adds information, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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 simple two-parameter discovery tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, scope, summary behavior, and parameter meaning. Minor gaps remain around Bizagi file handling and edge cases, but nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; the Args block adds meaning by defining directory as 'Folder to scan' and recursive as 'Include sub-folders'. This fully disambiguates both parameters for a simple tool, though it does not explain expected file formats or path encoding.

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 states a specific action ('Find') and resource ('BPMN and Bizagi files in a folder'), and distinguishes the tool from process-editing siblings by emphasizing folder scanning and one-line summaries. It is immediately clear what the tool does and how it differs from read_process or validate_process.

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 purpose implies usage when an agent needs to discover or summarize BPMN/Bizagi files in a directory, but the description never explicitly states when to prefer this over sibling tools or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative routing cues for the agent.

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