processDefinition_getCalledProcesses

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds valuable domain context explaining that 'called' means 'via call activity' (BPMN concept), which clarifies the static dependency nature. However, misses safety/operational details like error handling when ID not found, pagination behavior, or data freshness.

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 tight sentences with zero waste. First sentence front-loads the core action and domain mechanism (call activity). Second sentence provides use case. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

Adequate for a simple retrieval tool with 0 parameters and no output schema. Covers the 'what' and 'why'. Lacks specifics on return structure, error scenarios (e.g., invalid ID), or pagination, which would be necessary for robust agent usage given no output schema is provided.

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 (baseline 4 per rubric). Description mentions 'by a given process definition ID', which semantically compensates for the empty schema by indicating required input context, though it doesn't specify where/how to provide the ID (path vs body vs context).

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?

Excellent purpose clarity: specific verb 'List', resource 'process definitions', scope limitation 'statically called (via call activity) by a given process definition ID', and mechanism clarification '(via call activity)'. Distinguishes from sibling retrieval tools like processDefinition_getById by specifying the 'called processes' relationship.

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 through 'Useful for dependency analysis', indicating the analytical use case. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over processDefinition_getById or processDefinition_list, and contains no 'when-not' warnings or prerequisite conditions.

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