get_ai_agent_execution

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which already convey safety and open-world context. The description adds value by stating the tool returns the execution plan along with its steps and tool calls, which clarifies the content of the response. It does not contradict any annotations and provides a useful behavioral detail beyond the raw schema.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes the relevant table names. There is no redundant information, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function. It is concise and well-structured.

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 get-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It states what is returned (the plan with steps/tool calls), and the annotations cover safety and scope. An agent has all necessary information to call it correctly; no additional details about pagination, errors, or prerequisites are needed given the tool's simplicity.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter sys_id, describing it as 'sys_id of the execution plan'. The description does not add any additional semantics beyond this, so it relies on the schema. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'AI Agent execution plan', and specifies that it includes steps/tool calls. It references the underlying tables (sn_aia_execution_plan + _step), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_ai_agent (which retrieves the agent definition) and list_ai_agent_executions (which lists executions). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention that a sys_id is typically obtained from list_ai_agent_executions, nor any indication of when to prefer this over other AI agent tools. The context is entirely absent, leaving the agent to infer the usage from the parameter and tool name.

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