get_process

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious behavior: the tool 'runs through the Dynatrace Bridge browser extension in the user's logged-in browser,' instructs the agent to surface failures to the user, and explicitly forbids browser-automation fallbacks. It also notes the environment default and the ambiguity-returns-candidates behavior. Not covered: any auth/permission requirements or pagination/response-size limits.

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 short paragraphs: what it returns, how to supply the entity id and where to go next, and the execution/failure model. It is front-loaded and every sentence carries routing or behavioral information. It runs slightly long, but nothing is redundant filler.

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?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema, single-entity detail tool, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields, the id formats, the ambiguity path and the failure/reporting model. Remaining gaps are minor: no mention of output size, rate limits, or permission requirements.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by adding semantics the schema does not: that an ambiguous name returns candidates with their ids (never guesses), where ids originate, and that omission of `environment` resolves to the first configured environment listed by `dynatrace_bridge_status`. Window-resolution logic for time_from/time_to/minutes_lookback is largely already in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource and immediately disambiguates the two entity kinds it can return (PROCESS_GROUP_INSTANCE vs PROCESS_GROUP), then enumerates the payload: technology/version, host, pod, container, workload, hosted services, callers/callees, CPU and memory, events. An agent can distinguish this from get_host, process_runtime and list_pods without opening any schema.

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?

Names explicit alternatives and the condition that selects them: 'Follow up with `process_runtime` for JVM / Node.js metrics, or the service tools with a service id from the list.' It also tells the agent where valid process ids come from (get_host, process_runtime, find_entities). There is no explicit when-not guidance, but the routing is clear enough for correct selection.

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