Mint a new execution ID

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the critical integration contract (instrumented code must include this executionId in every log event POSTed to the ingestion server) and the prerequisite. It does not mention return value, idempotency, or error behavior, but for a minting operation the core behavior is adequately transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place. Front-loaded with the core action ('Mints a new executionId'), followed by the integration requirement, prerequisite, and alternative. No fluff or repetition.

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 relatively simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, integration contract, and sibling differentiation. It falls short only in explaining the sessionId parameter's origin and the exact return format, but overall it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is only 50%: label is described, but sessionId has only a minLength constraint with no purpose. The description does not clarify that sessionId likely refers to the session started by probe_server_start, leaving a significant semantic gap. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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?

Clearly and specifically describes the tool: it mints a new executionId for processes the user will trigger externally or manually. The description distinguishes it from the sibling execution_run, which launches and captures processes directly.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: requires probe_server_start to have been called first, and directs users to execution_run when log-probe-mcp should launch the process. This clearly identifies when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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