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 burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose the return type (status/metadata, not full output) and a specific error condition, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any other behavioral constraints such as rate limits.

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 concise and well-organized, using a short introductory sentence followed by a clear '选择规则' section. Every statement serves a useful purpose, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 description explains what the tool returns at a high level and gives the selection rules and error condition, which is enough to call it. However, there is no output schema and the description does not enumerate the specific status values or metadata fields returned, leaving the response shape somewhat underspecified.

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 already fully documents the single parameter, including its type, nullability, default, and meaning. The description reinforces this by explaining the exact fallback resolution order when the parameter is omitted, adding clear value 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 clearly states that the tool returns execution status and metadata and explicitly excludes the full output body, which distinguishes it from output-reading tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool named 'status', so some ambiguity remains.

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 provides explicit selection rules for the 'execution' parameter: use the provided ID, fall back to the current running execution, then to the most recent accepted execution, and return 'execution_not_found' if none exist. It gives clear operational guidance for the parameter, though it does not discuss when to prefer this tool over sibling tools other than implying that full output is obtained elsewhere.

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