turingmind_get_execution_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a read-only operation (get) and specifies returned fields, but omits any behavioral aspects like idempotency, potential costs, or side effects.

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 very concise (two sentences, 29 words) and front-loaded with the main action. However, the omission of parameter documentation is a structural gap that could have been included.

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 has one parameter and no output schema, the description fails to fully enable correct invocation. The critical 'repo' parameter is undocumented, making the tool difficult to use without external knowledge.

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 schema has one required parameter (repo) with 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent with no guidance on its meaning or valid values.

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 it retrieves global control plane state including ready_queue, blocked_queue, failed_nodes, and confidence metrics. This distinguishes it from sibling getter tools like get_ready_nodes, which focus on specific parts.

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 notes that the UI polls this tool to render specific visual elements, implying appropriate usage for periodic polling. However, it does not explicitly contrast usage with other tools or state 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.