get_execution_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns status plus log tail, which is the core behavior, and implies read-only nature. However, it does not mention potential side effects (none expected), polling behavior, or log length limits, so it is adequate but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes essential details (statuses, log tail). No wasted words.

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 simple status-check tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does and what it returns. It does not explain how to interpret the status (e.g., polling until completed), but that could be considered usage guidance rather than essential for a correct call.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the executionId parameter beyond its obvious relation to the run. It does not specify that executionId is the ID returned by execute_test_plan, which would have compensated for the coverage gap. The meaning is inferred but not stated.

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 tool checks the status of a test run, specifies it is for runs started with execute_test_plan, and enumerates the possible statuses (running/completed/failed) plus the log tail. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_execution_report (which likely provides full report) and stop_execution (which stops the run).

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?

It explicitly ties usage to runs from execute_test_plan, which gives clear context on when to invoke it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like get_execution_report for full results, so it lacks exclusions.

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