get_tool_executions_route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes nothing further — no mention of pagination behavior, filtering defaults, or result ordering — despite being a paginated list tool.

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?

It is a single phrase, but this reflects under-specification rather than efficient concision. There is nothing to front-load because no meaningful content is present.

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 an 8-parameter paginated retrieval tool with no output schema, the description leaves filtering semantics, pagination, and result shape entirely to the schema. It does not contradict anything, but it is substantially incomplete as an instruction source.

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 every parameter (tool_id, cursor, agent_id, branch_id, is_error, start_time, end_time, page_size) is already documented in the schema. Baseline 3 applies; the description adds no semantic detail beyond 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?

The description 'Get Tool Executions' merely restates the tool name/title, providing no scope, no distinction from siblings such as get_tools_route, get_tool_route, or get_test_invocation_route. It names a verb and a resource, but adds nothing an agent could not infer from the identifier.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or alternatives. The agent must infer from the name alone whether this is for listing execution history of a specific tool versus the sibling retrieval tools.

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