get_execution_stats

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and description confirms read-only behavior ('Aggregate...over a recent sample'). It adds behavioral context by specifying 'recent sample' and listing metrics (success/error/waiting counts, rate, duration). No contradictions.

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 sentences, zero waste. First sentence defines function; second sentence provides use case. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema, description lists key output metrics (success/error/waiting counts, success rate, average duration). It covers the tool's purpose and derived data adequately. Could mention if it returns per-workflow or aggregate, but 'per-workflow' implies grouping. Good for a summary tool.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (workflowId: restrict to one workflow; sample: how many recent executions). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Aggregate...execution health' and resource 'execution health over a recent sample'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_execution (single) and list_executions (list) by emphasizing per-workflow counts and success rate as a dashboard overview.

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?

Description explicitly frames when to use: 'The queue-mode dashboard in one call — spot failing or slow workflows.' It implies the tool is for health overview but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives.

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