Report the account's plan and execution usage for the current calendar month: used, included_executions, remaining, and whether overage is allowed. Check this before large batches to avoid hitting a hard quota.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies read-only behavior by stating 'report,' and describes the output. It does not mention side effects, but none are expected. Lack of explicit 'read-only' statement is a minor gap.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return fields, followed by a usage tip. No unnecessary words. Highly efficient.
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?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and when to use it. It could mention the return format more explicitly, but for a simple report tool it is complete enough.
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?
No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed. Schema coverage is 100% by default.
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 tool reports account-level plan and execution usage for the current calendar month, listing specific data points (used, included_executions, remaining, overage). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_execution (individual execution) and list_executions (list).
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 description explicitly advises checking before large batches to avoid hard quotas, providing a clear usage scenario. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or contrast with alternatives, though the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: execute, get_execution, get_usage, list_connections, list_executions, replay_execution. No overlapping functionality; descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (execute, get_execution, get_usage, list_connections, list_executions, replay_execution). Naming is uniform and predictable.
Six tools cover the core functionality of an execution management server: initiating, checking, listing, replaying executions, plus managing connections and usage. This is well-scoped, not too few nor too many.
The tool set provides a complete lifecycle for asynchronous API execution: create (execute), check status (get_execution), list (list_executions), replay (replay_execution), manage credentials (list_connections), and monitor usage (get_usage). No obvious gaps for the stated domain.