get_process_details

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 explains the verbose behavior and return representation, but omits details like error handling, read-only nature, or permissions. This adds useful context but is not comprehensive.

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 brief sentences plus parameter clarifications, with the purpose stated first. Every line earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers the key return aspects (status, node states, context variables) and the verbose difference. It lacks details on error cases or response examples, but for a focused retrieval tool, it is largely 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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it identifies process_id as a UUID and explains the verbose flag's impact on output structure. Schema coverage is 0%, so this compensation is critical and well-executed.

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 begins with a specific verb 'Fetch' and names the exact resource (detailed status, current node states, and context variables) for a specific process. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_processes, which likely provides a summary listing.

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 clearly limits the tool to a specific process (requires process_id) and explains the verbose flag's effect. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use it, the context is sufficient to infer when to call it relative to siblings.

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