get_recursive_agent_execution_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a bare status description by listing what is returned (termination state, token/cost charges, remaining budget, node counts, custody status) and clarifying that scope comes from authenticated server context. It does not mention error behavior or side-effect guarantees, but 'inspect' plus the detailed return semantics make it reasonably transparent.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and scope; the second efficiently enumerates the key returned fields. Every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema exists, the description is not required to explain return values in depth, yet it still summarizes the key outputs and auth scoping. Missing guidance on how to obtain execution_id and behavior for nonexistent executions are minor gaps, especially for a simple single-parameter status tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single execution_id parameter. It adds only 'one exact user-owned' context, which clarifies scope but does not explain where execution_id comes from, its format, or any validation constraints. Minimal compensation for a single simple parameter.

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 ('Inspect'), resource ('one exact user-owned recursive execution'), and clear scope ('user-owned', 'without secret capabilities'). It clearly distinguishes this status-checking tool from sibling tools like recursive_agent_execute, cancel_recursive_agent_execution, and new_recursive_execution_id even without opening their schemas.

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 clearly conveys the intended use: inspecting a single known recursive execution rather than creating, cancelling, or listing executions. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough.

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