get_process_definition

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the response bundles both the spec and a version history, and omitting version resolves to the most recent *published* version (not merely the latest). It does not describe error behavior for an unknown key, which keeps it below 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?

Three short sentences: what is returned, default resolution, then workflow hint. Front-loaded and zero 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so (spec + version history). For a 2-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient; only failure modes and history truncation are unstated.

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%: key has a pattern and example, version documents "qualquer status; omitido = vigente". The description's note about the default is a restatement of the schema rather than added meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource: returns a complete process definition (spec) plus the key's version history. This is clearly distinct from list_process_definitions (enumeration) and get_version (single version), though it never names those siblings explicitly, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

"Use antes de publicar uma versão nova" gives a concrete workflow position, implicitly routing the agent to validate/publish as follow-ups. The default behavior when version is omitted is also spelled out. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or naming alternatives, so not a 5.

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