scripts_get_script_execution_status

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

The description discloses important behavioral context: the required license (Cortex XSIAM Premium/Enterprise/Enterprise Plus), the HTTP endpoint, and an example request body. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description still omits any information about the response format or possible status values, leaving a gap in transparency for a read-like operation.

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?

The description is compact and organized with useful sections: summary, license, endpoint, and example. There is slight redundancy in the opening lines ('Get Script Execution Status' vs. 'Retrieve the status...'), but overall it is front-loaded and every substantive sentence adds value.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, license, endpoint, and an example. However, it lacks response detail and does not differentiate this status tool from the many related script tools (e.g., scripts_get_script_execution_results), which is particularly important given the absence of an output schema and the large sibling set.

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?

The schema description covers 100% of the parameters, including the nested request_data.action_id with its source. The tool description adds a concrete example request body, but no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve the status of a script execution action.' This distinguishes the tool from related siblings like scripts_get_script_execution_results, which retrieves results rather than status. The tool name and description are aligned and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when one needs script execution status, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as scripts_get_script_execution_results or actions_get_action_status. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, leaving the usage context inferred rather than explicit.

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