get_execution_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get') but doesn't state anything about what metrics are included, whether this requires a running execution, what happens for failed executions, or what the response format looks like. For a metrics-retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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 a single efficient sentence that states the tool's purpose without wasted words. It's appropriately concise for a single-purpose retrieval tool. Could be slightly more informative per sentence, but it is economically written.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is thin. It lacks guidance on the format of metrics returned, what distinguishes 'detailed' metrics from other metric tools, and any usage constraints. The sibling set includes get_metrics and get_workflow which creates ambiguity that the description fails to resolve.

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%, meaning the executionId parameter is documented in the input schema itself. There is only one parameter, so the schema covers it fully. The description adds no additional semantics about what 'detailed metrics' means or how executionId is used beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline 3 for high 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 'Get detailed metrics for a workflow execution' uses a specific verb+resource combination that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like get_workflow (which presumably retrieves the execution itself) and get_metrics (which is more generic). The purpose is clear, though it could differentiate more explicitly from the sibling get_metrics tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is a sibling get_metrics and get_workflow that could overlap or complement this tool, but no exclusions, context, or conditions are given. An agent would have to guess when metrics vs. workflow details are appropriate.

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