get_execution_diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful detail about the output contents, though it does not disclose any additional behavioral caveats such as pagination, limits, or failure modes. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 tool's purpose and enumerates the returned diagnostic fields. There is no filler or duplication of schema information.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains both the input provenance and the output structure. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and call the tool correctly, though it could briefly note the relationship to get_execution_trace.

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%, so the schema already documents that execution_id is a UUID. The description adds valuable semantic context beyond the schema by clarifying that execution_id can be either the agent_executions id or the root_execution_id returned by chat_with_agent, which helps the agent select the correct value.

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 identifies the tool's function: returning a complete diagnostic trace of an execution, including a chronological timeline of LLM and tool calls with tokens, latency, model, and finish_reason. It is specific and action-oriented, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the similarly named sibling get_execution_trace.

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 clear context on what input to supply and where that input can be sourced: the execution_id field from agent_executions or the root_execution_id returned by chat_with_agent. It does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_execution_trace, but the selection context is otherwise unambiguous.

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