get-experiment-by-id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return format as two content blocks (metadata and JSON with results/annotations), which is informative. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., missing ID) or side effects, which are minimal for a read 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 efficient, with no wasted sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then describes return structure, gives an example, and states expected return. The example is slightly user-facing rather than technical, but still valuable. Could be slightly more streamlined.

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 get-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, return format, and includes an example. It does not mention error cases or limits, but that is forgivable for a straightforward read operation.

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 single parameter 'experiment_id' is self-explanatory, but the description does not elaborate on its format or type beyond an example. With 0% schema coverage, the description could add more context (e.g., that it's a string, likely a base64-like identifier). The example helps, but baseline is 3 given the parameter name is clear.

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 'Get an experiment by its ID', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list-experiments-for-dataset by emphasizing retrieval of a single experiment by ID and detailing the return structure (metadata and JSON data).

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 usage when you have an experiment ID and want its details, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like get-dataset-experiments or list-experiments-for-dataset. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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