get_execution

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world nature. The description adds that it returns stage statuses, outputs, and timing, which provides useful context beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 a single, clear sentence that includes the core purpose and what is returned, with no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the primary action.

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 the low complexity (one parameter), rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It captures what the tool returns and the core resources involved. Could optionally mention that it requires an execution ID from a triggering or listing action, but the schema covers that.

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% for the single parameter 'execution_id', with a clear description in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it retrieves details of a pipeline execution, specifying what is included (stage statuses, outputs, timing). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_executions' (which lists summaries) and 'get_pipeline' (which gets pipeline definition).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context of retrieving full details for a specific execution is implied. The sibling tool 'list_executions' is for summaries, but no direct comparison or exclusion is provided.

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