Get Experiment

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, and the description clearly lists the state and summary data returned, including liveness. It does not explicitly state side-effect-freeness or permissions, but nothing suggests mutation or hidden costs.

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 compact and well-structured: one sentence for what it does, one for when to use it, and one for what it returns. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 a single parameter, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, return content, and a representative use case. A short note about which sibling tools to prefer for narrower needs would make it fully complete.

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 experiment_id is already described as 'The experiment to describe.' The description adds no new parameter-level detail, which matches the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 the specific verb 'Fetch' with a clear resource ('an experiment's full state and a summary of what happened in it') and enumerates the returned items. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like list_experiments or inspect_changes.

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?

It explicitly gives use cases: re-orienting after a long gap and checking whether a sandbox is still alive before more commands. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, such as pointing to check_sandbox_runtime for a lighter liveness check, so it stops short of a 5.

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