describe_process

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool is introspective ('Describe... whether it can run...') and lists what data is inspected, which implies a read-only operation. However, it never explicitly states that it does not execute or modify the process, and it does not describe error behavior for unknown constructor names.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. The core action and scoping ('Describe one PixInsight process by its PJSR constructor name') are front-loaded, and every subsequent clause adds a distinct piece of expected output.

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 one-parameter introspection tool with no output schema, the description does a good job enumerating what will be returned: view/global execution capability, parameter values/types, and named constants. It would be more complete if it stated the result format or behavior for invalid/unavailable process names, but an agent can still call the tool correctly from this description.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines 'name' as a PJSR process constructor name. The description repeats this and adds only a concrete example ('SCNR') and a link to the returned information, which is helpful but not substantial new semantic content.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Describe', and a specific resource, 'one PixInsight process by its PJSR constructor name'. It enumerates the exact information returned (view/global run capability, parameter values/types, numeric constants), which clearly differentiates it from execution-oriented siblings like run_process or enumeration-oriented list_processes.

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 usage guidance is given. The description does not say when to prefer describe_process over list_processes, run_process, or run_pjsr, nor does it mention any prerequisites or common scenarios such as inspecting a process before running it. The agent is left to infer the tool's role from its name and output description.

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