processDefinition_statistics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It effectively establishes the aggregate scope ('across all deployed definitions') and specific metrics, but omits critical behavioral traits: it doesn't confirm the operation is read-only/safe, doesn't mention pagination for large deployments, and doesn't describe the response structure (array vs object).

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?

Single efficient sentence uses a colon structure to front-load the action ('Get process definition statistics') and append specific details. No wasted words; every phrase earns its place by defining scope or return value.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers invocation context by specifying exactly which statistics are returned (instances, failed jobs, incidents). However, lacking output schema, it could have briefly indicated the return format (e.g., 'returns array of statistics').

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 zero parameters, so by rule baseline is 4. The description appropriately implies no filtering is possible by stating statistics are gathered 'across all deployed definitions' without parameter qualification.

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 specifies the resource ('process definition statistics'), scope ('across all deployed definitions'), and exact metrics returned ('instance counts, failed job counts, and incident counts'), which distinguishes it from siblings like processDefinition_activityStats (activity-level) and processDefinition_count (simple counting). However, it uses the generic verb 'Get' rather than a more specific verb like 'Aggregate' or 'Calculate', and doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like processDefinition_activityStats (for activity-level statistics) or incident_list (for detailed incident data). No prerequisites, filters, or 'when-not-to-use' conditions are mentioned.

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