get_execution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. 'Get full details' signals a read-only lookup and suggests richer output than a list. It does not disclose what specific details are returned, error behavior, or execution state handling, but for a simple getter this is a moderate gap.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Get'), the resource ('specific execution'), and the purpose ('for debugging'). Every word earns its place with no 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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient: it tells the agent what to get, why, and implies the value scope. It could be more explicit about what 'full details' contains, but the simple surface area keeps the missing context manageable.

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%: the only parameter, id, is described as 'Execution ID.' The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond 'specific execution,' so the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'Get full details of a specific execution.' It clearly establishes what the tool does and implies a read operation. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with list_executions or get_workflow, but the scope is distinct enough from siblings.

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 phrase 'for debugging' implies when this tool should be used, giving some context. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to list_executions as an alternative.

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