processInstance_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It partially succeeds by itemizing the return fields (id, definitionKey, state, business key) since no output schema exists, but fails to mention pagination behavior, result limits, or authentication 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?

The description is a single, efficiently structured sentence with no obvious redundancy. However, the mention of non-existent filters wastes the agent's attention and creates cognitive load regarding phantom input requirements.

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?

The description compensates somewhat for the lack of output schema by listing return fields. However, given the empty input schema, zero annotations, and the discrepancy regarding filters, the description fails to fully prepare the agent for actual invocation constraints.

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 (100% coverage of null), which should baseline at 4. However, the description incorrectly lists multiple optional filters (business key, definition key/id, state, etc.) that do not exist in the schema. This invents parameters that the agent cannot actually provide, creating confusion about the tool's interface.

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 'active process instances', establishing the core function. While it mentions specific filters (business key, definition key/id, etc.), the fundamental purpose is unambiguous despite this schema mismatch.

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 word 'active' implies a scope distinction from the sibling 'history_listProcessInstances', suggesting when to use this tool versus historical queries. However, it lacks explicit guidance on choosing between this and 'processInstance_count' or 'processInstance_get'.

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