Get Experiment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-style 'Fetch' operation and enumerates the state and summary contents returned: status, base image, isolation settings, resource limits, command counts, test summary, change statistics, and artifact count. This gives the agent a strong sense of what to expect without requiring the output schema.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then gives concrete usage guidance, and finally a useful return summary. Every sentence earns its place, and the bullet-like return list improves scannability without padding.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it explains when to use it, what it does, and what kind of information it returns. There are no significant gaps that would prevent an agent from selecting and invoking this tool correctly.

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 already 100% described by the input schema ('The experiment to describe.'). The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch an experiment's full state and a summary of what happened in it.' Its return list makes the purpose concrete, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_job_status or check_sandbox_runtime, so it stops short of full sibling-level clarity.

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 use cases: 'USE THIS to re-orient -- after a long gap, or to check whether a sandbox is still alive before sending more commands.' This is clear context for when to call it, but it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the strongest form of usage guidance.

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