scheme_process_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, what happens if the scheme process ID doesn't exist, whether the response includes node states or execution metadata, or whether this is a live or historical execution view. The parenthetical 'workflow execution instance' adds minimal context but falls well short of what a no-annotation mutation/read tool should disclose.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simple one-parameter surface, though it is thin enough that it could have used one more sentence to improve clarity without becoming verbose.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not compensate by explaining what 'details' include, whether node-level states are returned, or how this relates to sibling process tools. Given the complexity of the scheme/workflow domain and the crowded sibling list, this leaves the agent with substantial ambiguity about what will be returned and when to prefer this tool.

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 100%, and the single parameter 'scheme_process_id' is clearly documented in the schema as 'The unique ID of the scheme process'. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies for high schema coverage.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get details of a specific scheme process') and clarifies with the parenthetical 'workflow execution instance'. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as scheme_process_list_filtered or node_process_get, which is important given the crowded sibling set.

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 states what the tool does but offers no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to choose this over scheme_process_list_filtered (for a list) or node_process_get (for a node-level process), and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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