processDefinition_list

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

Without annotations, the description discloses return fields (key, id, version, deployment info) which provides some transparency about output structure. However, it omits other critical behavioral traits like read-only safety, pagination behavior, or rate limiting that would help an agent understand operational constraints.

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 efficiently structured in three clauses: purpose ('List...'), capabilities ('Filter by...'), and output ('Returns...'). Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description partially compensates by listing return fields. However, it omits pagination details, sorting options, and whether filters are optional or required, leaving gaps in contextual completeness for a listing operation.

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?

Despite the empty input schema (0 params), the description mentions five filter criteria (key, name, version, category, tenant), attempting to add semantic meaning. However, this creates ambiguity since the schema contradicts these capabilities by defining no parameters, creating potential confusion about how to invoke filtering.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'deployed process definitions', distinguishing it from siblings like 'processInstance_list' (instances vs definitions) and 'deployment_list' (deployments vs definitions). However, it stops short of explicitly contrasting with single-retrieval siblings like 'processDefinition_getById'.

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?

While it mentions filtering capabilities, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this bulk listing versus single-definition siblings like 'processDefinition_getByKey', nor does it mention prerequisites or typical use cases.

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