get_trigger_execution

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some behavioral context about the kind of data returned, but it does not disclose potential costs, errors, or limitations of retrieving 'enriched details'.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the main purpose and then compactly lists the enriched content categories, so every word 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?

For a read-only tool with one required parameter and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient: it names the resource and the categories of returned data. Since there is no output schema, slightly more detail about the return shape or format could improve completeness, but the current description is adequate for invocation.

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%, and the single parameter execution_id is already documented as 'UUID da execução'. The description does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Retorna') and a clear resource ('detalhes enriquecidos de uma execução'), and it enumerates what the details include: correlated session, LLM calls, tool calls, and aggregated metrics. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as list_trigger_executions or get_execution_trace, but the purpose itself is clear.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus close siblings like list_trigger_executions, get_execution_trace, or get_execution_diagnostics. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions mentioned, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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