get_flow_execution

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent with a read operation. The description adds 'status and details' as the data scope, but does not disclose return format, possible status values, error behavior, or permissions. No contradiction.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object, containing no filler or redundant information. Everything included is useful.

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 one-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose and the key identifier. It is slightly incomplete because it doesn't mention output format or alternatives, but given the low complexity this is sufficient.

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 input schema fully documents execution_sysid as 'sys_id of the flow execution to inspect', and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the phrase 'specific flow execution'. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 uses specific verb 'Get' and names the resource 'specific flow execution' along with what is returned ('status and details'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling 'list_flow_executions' which lists multiple executions.

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 clarifies that it applies to a specific flow execution, which implies it is for when an execution_sysid is already known. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as list_flow_executions or get_flow, nor does it state exclusions.

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