get-policy-execution-status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic retrieve action and offers no details about response format, whether it returns a single status or a list, error handling, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a read operation that might have nuances like historical data or pagination.

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, grammatically correct sentence that is easy to parse. However, it adds minimal value over the tool name and is too terse to be considered well-structured; it barely earns its place by expanding 'get' to 'retrieve' but lacks any supporting detail.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'execution status' means, what data will be returned, or any related concepts like runbooks or policy versions. The absence of an output schema makes this minimal description insufficient for an agent to understand expected results.

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 schema has one required parameter (policy_id) with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'a policy' but does not clarify what constitutes a policy ID, how to obtain it, or any format expectations. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('execution status for a policy'), which is a specific verb+object pair. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get-policy or get-runbook-execution, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about typical use cases, preprocessing, or conditions that would favor this tool over sibling read operations such as get-policy or get-runbook-execution.

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