Get a single execution's details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds the useful conditional that response headers/body are only returned if saved, and the verb 'Get' signals a read operation. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error/not-found handling, or any authentication or rate considerations.

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 with no extraneous words. The main action and resource are front-loaded, and the conditional 'if saved' adds necessary nuance without bloat.

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?

The tool has only two params, both documented in the schema, and no output schema exists. The description adequately explains what the response contains and the schema shows where the identifier comes from. A note on missing-entry behavior would make it fully complete, but this is a minor gap.

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 100%, so both jobId and identifier are already documented. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning; the parenthetical about response content concerns the return value rather than the parameters.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('one execution history entry'), and states what is included ('full details including response headers/body if saved'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list operation get_job_history and other job tools.

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 the tool is for retrieving a single history entry, and the schema's identifier description explicitly references get_job_history as the source of the identifier. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the singular scope and provenance provide clear usage context.

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