read_bpmn_file

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 disclosing behavior. It only reveals a vague sandbox-related constraint and does not describe return values, side effects, error behavior, or what file is actually read. For a tool with zero annotations, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. No sentences are wasted. However, the parenthetical is awkward and could have been clearer, which slightly reduces the structural quality.

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?

Despite having no parameters, the description does not clarify which file is read or how the agent should identify it. The sandbox note hints at a constraint but does not explain the tool's full behavior or output. An agent cannot fully infer how to invoke or interpret this tool from the description alone.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because there are none. It correctly avoids inventing parameters or suggesting inputs that do not exist.

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 ('Lee un archivo BPMN/XML') and a resource, making it clear this tool reads BPMN/XML files. The parenthetical sandbox note adds context but is slightly ambiguous about what 'sandbox al directorio de salida' means exactly. It is distinguishable from sibling creation and validation tools, though not explicitly differentiated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_bpmn_file, list_bpmn_elements, or list_generated_files. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and verb. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or hints about why an agent would choose this tool over others.

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