processInstance_getVariables

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses return format ('name, type, and value') and scope limitation ('active' instances only), but omits error behavior (e.g., 404 if instance not found), pagination for large variable sets, or auth requirements.

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?

Three efficient sentences with no waste: action sentence first, return format second, usage intent third. Every sentence 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?

Reasonably complete given constraints: describes return values (compensating for missing output schema) and distinguishes 'active' scope. Could improve by mentioning path parameter requirements (if any) or warning about potential size of 'all variables' response.

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?

Schema has 0 parameters, triggering baseline score of 4. Description appropriately mentions no parameters, remaining consistent with the empty schema provided.

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 clarity: 'Retrieve all variables for an active process instance' specifies verb (Retrieve), resource (variables), and scope (active process instance). The word 'all' effectively distinguishes this from sibling processInstance_getVariable (singular) and 'active' distinguishes from history_listVariableInstances.

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 basic usage context ('Use to inspect current execution state') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. processInstance_getVariable (singular) or task_getVariables, and doesn't mention prerequisites like requiring the process instance ID.

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