execution_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It valuably discloses that state becomes Unknown after restart and that this means no automatic replay or verified ownership, but it does not describe return statuses, permissions, or failure behavior.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. The restart caveat is dense but relevant to correct interpretation.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify what status values mean and what the tool returns. It includes an important restart caveat but does not enumerate or explain the execution states beyond "Unknown."

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 only 50%: owner is well documented in the schema, while id has only a pattern and no textual meaning. The description adds no parameter semantics and does not compensate for the undocumented id field.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Read a local execution state." The word "local" helps distinguish it from remote execution siblings such as remote_batch_status, but no sibling is explicitly named as an alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent would infer this is used to check the state of an execution started elsewhere, likely start_execution. The description gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternatives.

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