explain_bpmn_concept

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool searches 'best practices' internally, but it does not describe the return format, whether it returns a single explanation or a list, how failures are handled, or what the user will actually see. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 brief and front-loads the core purpose in a single sentence. It contains no filler. It loses a point because the parenthetical about searching by title or id introduces an important input requirement that the schema does not support.

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 tool with no input schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the description must explain how the agent selects the concept and what the response looks like. It does neither clearly. The reference to title or id hints at selection criteria, but the lack of parameters and absence of output details leave the tool underspecified.

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 description mentions searching 'por título o id', which implies the agent needs to specify a concept by title or id. However, the input schema is empty (properties: {}), so there is no way to pass that information. This is a conflict between the description and the schema that makes invocation ambiguous. The description adds no actionable parameter guidance.

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 and resource: 'Explica un concepto BPMN' (explains a BPMN concept). It adds that it searches best practices by title or id, which gives some differentiation from generic catalog or listing tools. However, it does not define what counts as a 'concept' or clarify how it differs from nearby tools like get_best_practices or get_bpmn_cheatsheet.

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 intended usage is implied: use it when a user wants an explanation of a BPMN concept. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose instead, even though many siblings provide reference information about BPMN elements, gateways, events, and best practices.

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