read_process

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses supported file types (.bpmn/.xml), an explicit unsupported format (.bpm), and the meaning of each detail mode. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the verb 'Read' and the absence of side-effects language make the behavior reasonably clear.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a short necessary limitation note, and a clear Args section. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 two-parameter read operation with an output schema present, this description covers supported formats, the key unsupported format, parameter semantics, and the relationship to create_process. Nothing essential for an agent to invoke it 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 for both parameters. It does: file_path is explained as 'Path to a .bpmn or .xml file', and detail enumerates all three options with their semantic meaning, including how 'spec' can be passed back to create_process.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read'), a concrete resource (.bpmn file), and the return structure (pools, lanes, activities, gateways, events, flows). It clearly distinguishes read_process from sibling tools that list, create, update, or import processes.

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?

Gives clear context on when to use the tool and an important prerequisite: Bizagi's native .bpm format must be exported to BPMN first. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like validate_process or list_processes, but the included create_process reference in the detail parameter adds useful routing context.

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