get_process_command

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's added value is the status semantics: received = not yet applied, applied, rejected with reason. It also discloses the access restriction (admin/owner only). It does not say what happens with an unknown/expired command_id, so not a full 5.

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?

Very dense and front-loaded: the resource, the sibling contrast, the status enum, and the auth note all land in a few short clauses with no filler. Minor friction from the parenthetical nesting and 'status' appearing without an obvious antecedent in the first clause.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden by enumerating the possible return states and their meanings, plus the access requirement. What remains unstated is error/invalid-command behavior and whether results are eventually consistent, which are minor for a simple two-UUID lookup.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain where command_id originates and the sibling tools that produce it, but instance_id is never explained and neither parameter's format/constraints are clarified. Partial compensation for a two-parameter tool.

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 resource and action: the outcome of an already-requested intervention command, with the explicit contrast that cancel_process_instance / resolve_process_incident only return command_id with status 'received'. An agent can distinguish this read tool from the sibling mutation tools without opening either 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?

Explicitly says 'Consulte isto em vez de repetir a mutação' — use this instead of repeating the mutation — which names the alternative behavior to avoid and the condition that selects it. It also notes the admin/owner prerequisite, leaving little to inference.

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