process_get_execution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the returned information (status, output, execution time, errors) but does not mention side effects, permissions, or distinction from other read-oriented sibling tools. Since this is a retrieval operation, some traits are implied but not fully disclosed.

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?

Two succinct sentences: the first states the core function and content, the second supplies the required parameter source. No fluff, and essential information is front-loaded.

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 a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool returns and how to obtain the required ID. It could further differentiate from sibling tools that also access execution outputs, but it is complete enough for effective invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the execution_id parameter. The description repeats the same guidance ('Use the execution_id returned from shell_execute') without adding new semantic detail, thus meeting but not exceeding the baseline.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('detailed information about a specific command execution') and enumerates the content (status, output, execution time, errors). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like shell_execute by indicating it is a follow-up retrieval step.

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 instructs to use the execution_id returned from shell_execute, providing clear contextual usage. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives like list_execution_outputs, but the usage context is well implied.

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