get-experiment-by-id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns two content blocks: metadata and experiment data with results and evaluator annotations. This gives clear expectations about the output structure. However, it does not cover error states or behavior on missing IDs.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by details on return format and an example. It is reasonably concise (about 50 words) but could be tightened by removing the phrase 'for example, comparing the output...' which is explanatory but not essential.

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 (one param, no output schema), the description covers the purpose, return structure, and provides a concrete example. It does not address potential errors or edge cases, but for a read-only lookup, this level of detail is adequate.

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 input schema has one parameter experiment_id with 0% description coverage. The description does not add a formal parameter description but provides an example ID in the usage section, indicating the expected format. This partially compensates but does not fully explain constraints or valid values.

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.' It specifies the resource (experiment) and the action (get by ID), distinguishing it from sibling tools that list experiments or get other entities. The additional details about the return content solidify the purpose.

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, e.g., 'Show me the experiment results for experiment RXhwZXJpbWVudDo4'. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-dataset-experiments or list-experiments-for-dataset. No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use are given.

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