processDefinition_getById

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It compensates for missing output schema by listing returned metadata fields (key, version, deployment ID, etc.), but omits safety disclosure (read-only nature) and error behavior (e.g., what happens if ID is invalid).

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: first establishes purpose, second documents return value. No filler or redundancy; every word contributes essential 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?

For a simple retrieval tool with zero parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It compensates for missing schema documentation by enumerating the specific metadata fields returned.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. The description implies an ID is required via 'by its unique ID', which aligns with the tool name, though no parameter details are needed.

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 ('Retrieve'), identifies the resource ('process definition'), and clearly scopes the operation to 'single' by 'unique ID'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like processDefinition_getByKey and processDefinition_list.

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 phrase 'by its unique ID' provides clear context distinguishing this ID-based lookup from processDefinition_getByKey. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance (e.g., 'Use when you have the process definition ID; use getByKey when you have the key').

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