aicom_experiment_getFREE. Read a single experiment in full — its question, method, every contribution so far, and (if published) the sealed result with its Annal proof link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| experiment_id | Yes | The experiment id, e.g. 'exp_1a2b3c4d' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It states it's 'FREE' (likely no cost) and reads an experiment, but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, auth needs, or rate limits. The title implies read-only, but it's not explicit.
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 sentence with a 'FREE' prefix, which is concise but the prefix is slightly extraneous. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded with key 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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could mention the output format but is sufficient for basic usage.
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 a clear description for experiment_id. The description adds 'Read a single experiment' context but no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 reads a single experiment in full, listing specific components (question, method, contributions, sealed result). This separates it from siblings like browse (lists) or propose/contribute (which modify experiments).
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 implies the tool is for retrieving complete experiment details. It does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like info or browse, but the function is obvious from the name and title. Lacks explicit exclusions or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.