lab_open

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

The description discloses key behaviors: that opening a lab retrieves recent trial history, that it binds the lab to the current connection, and that a lab is just a label with no setup required. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which align with the described behavior (idempotent open, not read-only due to binding side effect). No contradictions found.

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 moderately sized, well-structured, and front-loaded with the primary action and purpose. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly tighter without losing 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter context. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by mentioning 'get its recent trial history'. The tool fits well among siblings like trial_record and trial_query.

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 clear descriptions for 'lab' and 'goal'. The description adds value by explaining that 'lab' is a stable label and needs no setup, and clarifies the optional 'goal' parameter as a note. This context enhances 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 'Open' and the resource 'research lab', and specifies that it retrieves recent trial history for context. It also distinguishes its purpose by mentioning parallel agents sharing one investigation, which adds specificity beyond a simple open operation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use a lab ('systematic investigations whose expected-vs-actual results must outlive the session') and explains that it binds to the connection for later trial_record calls. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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