validate_bpmn_file

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, but it only says 'validates.' It does not mention whether the tool reads a file from the output directory, whether it is read-only, what the validation result looks like, or whether errors are returned.

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 concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of useful context.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a similarly named sibling, the description is too thin. It leaves unclear which file is validated, how validation is triggered, what the outcome format is, and why validate_bpmn_file should be chosen over validate_bpmn_xml.

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, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The description's mention of 'archivo' provides minimal context about what the tool operates on, which is acceptable for a parameterless tool.

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 action ('Valida') and the resource ('un archivo BPMN 2.0'), so an agent can tell this tool is for validating BPMN files. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling validate_bpmn_xml; the only hint is the word 'archivo' as opposed to XML.

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 about when to use this tool versus validate_bpmn_xml or any other sibling. The description only states what it does, not when it is the preferred choice or what conditions call for an alternative.

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