show_processdetails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior in edge cases (e.g., invalid process ID). It provides basic transparency but leaves significant gaps.

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 is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is efficient with no wasted words, though could benefit from slight restructuring for clarity.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify the return structure. It mentions 'metadata including chain of import/export actions' but does not describe other metadata fields or pagination. Adequate but incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline with no extra value.

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 verb (Get) and resource (process definition metadata), and specifies included details (chain of import/export actions), distinguishing it from sibling show_* tools that focus on individual actions, imports, or exports.

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 implies when to use (need process metadata with action chain), but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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