make_get_execution

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool returns status, operations, duration, and error info, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or disclose any authorization needs or rate limits. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but lacks some behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes necessary context. Every word contributes to understanding, with no wasted text.

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 low complexity (2 simple params, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does and how to obtain the required parameters. It mentions the type of details returned, which is helpful, though a bit more detail on the return structure would be useful.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The description adds context that execution_id comes from make_list_executions, but beyond that, it does not add significant meaning 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', the resource 'full details of a single scenario execution/log', and the key identifiers (scenario_id + execution_id). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like make_list_executions (which lists) and make_get_scenario (which gets scenario 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 explicitly tells users to obtain execution_id from make_list_executions, providing a clear prerequisite. It implies it is for detailed view after listing, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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