bw_processchain_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says the result is 'parsed' and advises using outputPath. It does not describe the default return shape, side effects, size implications, or what happens when outputPath is omitted. 'Prefer outputPath' hints at large responses but does not actually disclose the behavior.

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 two short sentences with the core action placed first and no filler. 'Prefer outputPath' is concise, although its terseness means the agent must rely on the schema for full meaning.

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 annotations, yet the description does not explain the default return format or when this tool should be chosen over related process-chain tools. The rich outputPath parameter documentation helps, but the tool-level context remains incomplete for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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 outputPath parameter is already documented extensively in the schema, and the description adds only a terse preference for it. The required id parameter lacks a description, but it is self-evident as a resource identifier. The description adds marginal meaning beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for the undocumented id parameter.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('parsed process chain details'), and narrows the result to 'steps'. This goes well beyond the bare tool name and gives an agent a clear sense of what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling process-chain tools.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus siblings like bw_processchain_logs, bw_processchain_check, or bw_processchain_execute. 'Prefer outputPath' is a parameter preference, not tool-selection guidance, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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