Get workflow execution

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds context by specifying the returned data (status, timing, credits, full payloads) and that it reads from 'persisted execution.' It implies safe repeated polling, but doesn't elaborate on error behavior or rate limits; still adds value beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and payload details, followed by practical usage guidance. No redundant or filler content; every clause earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. It even highlights the sibling omission, making the context complete for an agent deciding between list and get operations.

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% for both parameters, with each already described. The description adds minor context (e.g., 'from run_workflow' for execution_id), but largely relies on schema descriptions, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 precise resource ('one workflow execution's status, timing, credits, and full per-step input/output payloads'). It distinguishes itself from sibling list_workflow_executions by explicitly noting that list omits step payloads, making its purpose unique.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use to poll a run started with run_workflow or inspect what each step returned.' It also contrasts with the alternative by stating 'list_workflow_executions deliberately omits step payloads,' giving clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use direction.

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