processDefinition_activityStats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the conceptual behavior (aggregation of counts per activity) but fails to declare read-only safety, performance characteristics, caching behavior, or the actual return structure/format given no output schema exists.

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?

Two efficient sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by use case. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Lists the three statistic types returned, partially compensating for missing output schema. However, lacks description of the data structure (array vs object, key names) and behavioral context expected when annotations are absent.

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?

Zero parameters exist, establishing baseline 4. The description requires no parameter clarification.

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 specific verb 'Get' with clear resource 'activity-level statistics for a process definition'. It explicitly lists what statistics are returned (instance counts per activity, failed job counts, incident counts), distinguishing it from sibling 'processDefinition_statistics' which likely returns aggregate data.

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?

Provides implied usage via 'Useful for bottleneck analysis' but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like 'processDefinition_statistics' or history APIs (history_listActivityInstances). No 'when-not' or prerequisite guidance provided.

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