processInstance_getActivityTree

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds valuable context about hierarchical return structure (tree with sub-processes and execution structure) but omits safety profile (read-only?), error behavior, or authorization requirements expected for a 'get' tool without annotation coverage.

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, zero waste. Front-loaded with core action, second sentence elaborates return structure efficiently.

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?

Adequately compensates for missing output schema by describing the tree structure and contents returned. No input parameters to document. Could mention read-only nature given lack of annotations, but sufficient for a retrieval tool of this complexity.

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 zero parameters. Per rubric, 0 params = baseline 4. No parameters require semantic clarification.

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?

Clear specific verb (Retrieve), resource (activity instance tree), and scope (for a process instance). Second sentence distinguishes content (active activities, sub-processes, execution structure) from flat history lists or basic instance retrieval.

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?

Mentions 'current active activities' implying runtime monitoring use case, distinguishing from historical siblings like history_listActivityInstances. However, lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives.

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