get_template_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the operation retrieves details, but it does not say what happens for invalid IDs, whether the operation is read-only in practice, what response format to expect, or any side effects. The description is too thin to be transparent.

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 with no filler, front-loading the action and object. It is appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool, though it is arguably under-specified in other dimensions.

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 annotation coverage, so the description alone must make the tool callable. It does not explain how the 'id' is provided, what details are returned, or how this tool relates to the many template and BPMN siblings. This is inadequate for reliable invocation.

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?

Although the schema has zero parameters and the baseline for 0 params is 4, the description introduces an 'id' concept that the input schema does not support. This creates confusion: the agent is told the lookup is by id, but there is no way to supply that id through the schema. The description therefore adds misleading rather than helpful parameter semantics.

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 a specific action ('Obtiene detalles') and resource ('una plantilla BPMN por id'), which distinguishes it from listing templates or creating from templates. It lacks a bit of specificity about what kind of details are returned, but the core 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_templates, read_bpmn_file, or create_from_template. The phrase 'por id' implies it should be used when an ID is known, but no explicit context, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided.

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