jamjet_get_execution

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

The description says 'Read-only, no side effects', which is important behavioral info. It also explains failure behavior ('Fails with 'execution not found''). However, since no annotations are provided, the description does not bear a low bar. It could add more on rate limits or authorization requirements, but the read-only nature is clearly communicated.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose. Every subsequent sentence adds value (read-only note, usage guidance, return fields, failure behavior, alternative tool). No redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description is complete. It lists return fields and their meanings, mentions possible status values, and explains null behavior for completed_at. No output schema exists, so this level of detail is necessary and sufficient.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds extra value by noting that execution_id accepts both 'exec_<uuid>' or bare UUID format, and that tenant_id defaults to 'default' and must match the original tenant. This augments the schema sufficiently.

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 states 'Retrieve the full details of a single workflow execution' with a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('workflow execution'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming jamjet_get_events for event history and implies it's complementary to jamjet_run_workflow, covering all necessary 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?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool: 'to check an execution's current status, inspect its state, or confirm completion after running jamjet_run_workflow'. It also advises using jamjet_get_events for the full event history, providing an alternative. This is thorough guidance.

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