get_execution_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Get', implying read-only, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the config might be absent. This is minimal for a GET operation.

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 sentence that conveys the necessary information efficiently. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous 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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the returned configuration contains, but it does not. The tool is a retrieval operation that could have important context (e.g., config contents, nesting), which is missing.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds 'by execution ID and config ID', which aligns with the schema. No additional semantic value is provided beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'configuration for an authentication execution', specifying both identifiers (execution ID and config ID). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_authenticator_config (which retrieves config by provider ID) and get_auth_execution (which retrieves execution details).

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 implies usage when both execution_id and id are known, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_authenticator_config or get_auth_flow. No guidance on when not to use it.

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