get_execution

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: statuses are manually set and not inferable from counts, execution.status and sources[].status use different vocabularies, and passRate is divided by total rather than by completed cases. It also warns that list_executions and get_release repeat these labels unchanged, extending the caution beyond this single tool.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it fronts the return structure, then packages the traps, formulas, and sibling routing in clearly labeled units. The length is justified by the actual semantic complexity of the tool.

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, one-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is exceptionally complete. It covers return shape, field semantics, status vocabulary, count-to-status relationship, percentage formulas, and the exact way to obtain the required id. Nothing needed for safe invocation is missing.

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 already covers the single parameter fully with 'Execution UUID', so the description does not need to restate it. It does add a useful hint to use list_executions to find an id, but that is more usage guidance than expanded parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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-resource pair, 'get one Manual Test Execution', and itemizes exactly what the tool returns: execution, sources, releases, externalLinks, and progress. It also differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly pointing to get_execution_cases for individual case rows and list_executions for finding an id.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: use get_execution_cases for individual case rows, use list_executions to find an id, and warns that sources[].id is what remove_source_from_execution and set_execution_source_status consume. This is exactly the when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives information an agent needs.

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