processDefinition_getXmlById

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It identifies the return format (BPMN 2.0 XML), but omits error handling (e.g., 404 for invalid ID), side effects, or permissions required. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence defines the action and resource; the second provides use-case context. Every element 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?

Given the tool has 0 input parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials by specifying the returned data format (BPMN 2.0 XML). It could improve by noting where the ID originates (likely URL path) given the empty schema.

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 input schema contains 0 parameters with 100% coverage. Per guidelines, 0 params warrants a baseline score of 4. The description indirectly implies the ID parameter through the tool name and 'by ID' phrase.

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 exact resource ('BPMN 2.0 XML source'), and scope ('by ID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool 'processDefinition_getXmlByKey' by specifying the ID-based lookup method.

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 provides implied usage context ('Useful for inspecting or debugging'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'getXmlByKey' or other processDefinition tools, and states no prerequisites or exclusions.

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