kratos_get_process_defaults

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the parsing source (ValidateAndAssignDefaults block), the exact return contents, and error conditions (source unavailable, module not found, non-standard declaration). This is substantial behavioral context, though it doesn't mention performance or file-system dependencies.

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 front-loaded with the action ('Return...'), uses a compact dash list for contents, and includes only essential context (purpose, parameter source, error cases). No sentence is wasted.

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 only one parameter and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter derivation, return contents, and error behavior. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be repeated. It's complete for an introspection tool.

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 schema provides only the parameter name 'python_module' with a title 'Python Module' and no description. The tool description compensates by explaining it takes a value from kratos_list_processes and provides concrete examples, giving the agent the needed 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 names a specific action ('Return a Kratos process' default settings') and details the contents (parameter names, default values, types, model-part references). It differentiates from sibling tools like kratos_get_solver_defaults by explicitly tying to process defaults and referencing kratos_list_processes as the source of python_module.

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?

It explains the tool provides the schema needed to author a process block in a ProjectParameters process list, which is a clear use case. It points users to kratos_list_processes to find valid python_module values, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool in favor of alternatives.

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