bpmn_spec_guide

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and for a zero-parameter reference tool it does: it makes clear this returns static guidance content rather than mutating or querying anything. It omits any statement about statelessness/caching or response size, which are the only remaining unknowns.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the content summary is front-loaded ahead of the call-timing instruction. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

With an output schema present and no parameters, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly focuses on what the guide contains and when to read it. The only thin spot is that it doesn't say whether to re-read it after a check fails or how it relates to bpmn_setup_check.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by giving no input requirements.

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 names a specific action (return) and concrete content (diagram spec format, layout rules, per-error fixes), so an agent knows exactly what this tool yields. It implicitly separates itself from bpmn_build by telling the agent to read this first, but never contrasts with bpmn_setup_check, the other sibling in the same family.

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?

"Read this before the first bpmn_build call" gives an explicit trigger point for invoking the tool. The mention of "fixes for each check error" also implies a second use case after a failing check, though neither exclusion nor a re-read rule is stated outright.

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