get_output_directory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only that the tool 'gets' the directory, but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what exactly is returned (e.g., a file path, a list of files, or directory contents), or any side effects. The absence of an output schema amplifies this 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 is a single sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It's front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes meaning. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description is incomplete for an agent needing to invoke the tool correctly. It doesn't specify the return format (path, list, object), whether the directory is static or configurable, or any relationship to generated files. Without an output schema, the agent has insufficient information to interpret results. A more complete description would state the return type and possibly reference sibling tools for file-level operations.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty (coverage 100%). Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a score of 4 is appropriate because there are no parameters for the description to explain. The description doesn't add parameter-related meaning, but it isn't required to.

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's purpose: 'Gets the output directory with generated BPMN files.' The verb 'obtiene' and resource 'directorio de salida' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like list_generated_files or read_bpmn_file, which operate on files rather than the directory itself.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description doesn't explain when to use this tool instead of alternatives, such as list_generated_files or get_bpmn_cheatsheet, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for querying the output directory. The agent is left to infer its role from the name and sibling catalog.

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