cmmn-get_execution_flow

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 implies a read-only operation ('Gets the execution flow') and describes the return data. However, it does not disclose any behavioral details such as side effects, permissions needed, or performance characteristics. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 sentences, directly stating the action and output. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and provides additional detail. No extraneous information.

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 one simple parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. It explains the edges traversed and what the connections represent. However, it does not describe the return structure or format, which could be useful. Given the tool's simplicity, it is fairly complete.

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 100% coverage with a single parameter described. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Case ID to analyze (@rid format)'. It mentions traversing edges, but that is not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter well.

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 tool gets execution flow by traversing OnPart and Guards edges, and returns workflow connections. It distinguishes itself from siblings like cmmn-get_execution_plan and cmmn-verify_sentry_edges by specifying the traversal logic and focus on triggers and guards.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'useful for visualizing CMMN workflow dependencies' but provides no when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings. Given many related CMMN tools, this is a gap.

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