Strata execution status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which already cover safety. The description adds value by explaining that this tool can recover 'prepared state' or a 'restart-durable confirmed execution receipt', which hints at idempotent state retrieval without side effects. This adds behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action. No wasted words or redundant 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 required params, no output schema), the description is minimal but does cover the core purpose. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no output schema, more detail on expected return values or additional context (e.g., typical usage flow after prepare/submit) would improve completeness. It's adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, the description doesn't explain the parameters beyond the schema patterns. The schema already implies marketId and executionId from the patterns, but the description doesn't add meaning such as how these IDs are obtained or their role in the query. Baseline is 3 because of 0% coverage, but no extra semantic help is provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('Recover') and clearly names the resource ('prepared state or a restart-durable confirmed execution receipt'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'strata_execution_prepare' and 'strata_execution_submit' by indicating this is about querying status after preparation or submission.

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 in recovery scenarios (e.g., after a restart) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'strata_order_status' or 'strata_execution_challenge'. No exclusions or alternative tools are named.

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