get_execution

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

With no annotations, the description discloses what the tool returns (status, times, optional node data) and implies it is a read operation. It does not explicitly state read-only or mention side effects, but the content is clear and sufficient for an agent.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently summarizes what the tool returns. It does not need to explain return values in depth since the output schema exists. No gaps are apparent.

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 has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that include_data controls inclusion of node input/output data, which goes beyond the schema's brief description. No further elaboration on execution_id is needed.

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 tool retrieves full details of a single workflow execution, specifying the returned information (status, times, optional node data). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_executions' (multiple) and 'delete_execution' (destructive).

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 use for getting a specific execution's details but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The context of sibling names helps, but no direct comparison is given.

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