validate_process

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the audit scope (checks listed), the two input modes and their mutual exclusivity, and the format options. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only (though implied) nor mention any permissions or side effects. For a validation tool, this is a moderate gap.

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 starts with a clear one-sentence purpose, then details the checks, and ends with parameter explanations. It is front-loaded and structured well. The list of checks is lengthy but informative, and the Args block is efficient. Some redundancy exists (e.g., the purpose sentence and the check list both mention correctness), but overall it is concise relative to the tool's complexity.

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 complex auditing tool with an output schema, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, checks performed, input modes, and format selection. It does not describe return structure, but the presence of an output schema reduces that need. Missing details like error handling or behavior on invalid input are not critical for this tool type, making the description reasonably complete.

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%, but the description's 'Args' section explains all four parameters: file_path, spec, include_best_practice, and format. Each has a brief explanation, and the mutual exclusivity of file_path and spec is noted. The spec explanation ('A specification to audit before generating it') is slightly vague, but overall the description compensates well for the missing 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?

The description clearly states the tool audits a diagram against BPMN 2.0 rules and returns findings with fixes. The verb 'Audit' is specific, the resource is a BPMN diagram, and it is distinct from siblings like list_processes, create_process, or render_preview. No sibling performs validation, so purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage context—auditing a diagram for correctness—and differentiates from generation tools. However, it never explicitly says 'use this when you need to validate' or contrasts with alternatives like read_process. The purpose is so specific that an agent can infer when to use it, but no exclusions or conditional guidance are given.

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