get_execution

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

Annotations already establish safety (readOnly, idempotent, not destructive), but the description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: externalLinks are returned only when the caller holds integrations:read, and the structure of progress and sources is explicitly described. This goes beyond annotation basics and informs the agent about conditional data availability.

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 information-dense sentences cover purpose, usage, and result structure without filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every clause adds meaningful detail for successful tool invocation.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what the tool returns. It does so thoroughly: sources, links, progress, bucket categories, and rates. It also explains the permissions caveat and how IDs map to sibling tools. Nothing critical is missing for a single-parameter read operation.

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 input schema already fully documents executionId as an execution UUID with 100% coverage. The description does not add semantic meaning to the parameter itself, but it indirectly explains how the returned sources relate to other operations. This is baseline adequate given full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clearly defined resource ('a Manual Test Execution') and enumerates its returned components: sources, linked releases, external ticket links, and overall progress. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_execution_cases and list_executions by describing a full execution snapshot with progress and sources.

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 states 'Use to verify what an execution contains,' giving clear situational guidance. It also connects to sibling tools by noting sources[].id is the runId for set_execution_source_status and remove_source_from_execution. It does not name alternative tools for negative guidance, but the primary use case is clear.

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