bourne_execution_get

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

Annotations already establish read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context by listing the exact state categories returned (telemetry, verification, etc.), telling the agent what data to expect. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and the scope of the returned data. No extraneous words or fluff.

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?

The output schema covers return values, so that is not needed. However, the missing reference-format details and lack of guidance on when to use this over sibling read-ish tools leave minor gaps. Given the simplicity of a one-parameter read-only tool, this is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 has no description for 'reference' and the tool description does not clarify its format or how to obtain it. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not; it only implies an execution identifier through the tool name.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Read') and the resource ('a Bourne execution'), and enumerates the specific state components included (request, plan, lifecycle, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cancel or wait. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

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 indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bourne_execution_reconcile, wait, or cancel. It only describes the function, leaving the agent to infer that this is the standard read operation. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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