get_execution

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool returns node-by-node input and output data, which clarifies the response scope, but it doesn't disclose the default behavior of includeData (though schema does) or any error behaviors.

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?

One short sentence with no filler; front-loads the core purpose.

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?

For a simple read-only getter with two parameters and a clear scope, the description is adequate but not exhaustive—it doesn't mention the return format or that includeData toggles data inclusion, though the schema covers that. It would be more complete with a note about using list_executions to obtain the ID.

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 documents both parameters with descriptions (id and includeData), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it's at the baseline for high coverage.

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 identifies the resource (specific execution), the action (get), and the scope (node-by-node input/output data), which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_executions (list) and delete_execution (delete).

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 implies usage when detailed node-level data is needed, but it does not explicitly specify when to choose this over list_executions or provide prerequisites like needing the execution ID first. 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.