recover_execution

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

Without relying on annotations, the description discloses consequential behavior: it archives evidence, releases only the target lock, never sends a script/cancels/retries Illustrator work, and refuses certain states. This goes well beyond the generic destructive/read-only hints in the annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the precondition, then the requirement, then the side-effects and refusals. No filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, provenance of the id, side effects, and explicit non-actions. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly or avoid calling it.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It states the execution_id must be exact and come from get_runtime_status, adding provenance context the schema doesn't. It doesn't describe the UUID format, but the schema's pattern covers that.

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?

States a specific verb (recover) and resource (an uncertain execution) with the exact precondition that gates it. Distinguishes itself from siblings like get_runtime_status and run_script by specifying what it will not do (send a script, cancel, retry).

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?

Explicitly states when to use (only after a valid native completion receipt or recognized legacy native compile failure) and when not to (refuses running or unproven timeout states). Points the agent to get_runtime_status as the source of the required execution_id.

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