exp_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the content returned (spec/status/run summary); it says nothing about error behavior or whether the experiment must exist, which is acceptable given annotations but not generous.

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?

A single front-loaded noun phrase with zero filler; appropriately sized for a trivial getter, though the fragmentary style borders on under-specification rather than true economy.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the read-only annotations cover the safety profile. Still missing is any disambiguation from exp_list/exp_status/exp_runs and any hint about the 'name' parameter, leaving the definition minimally viable.

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 0% — the single 'name' parameter has no description. The tool description never clarifies whether 'name' is an experiment name, an ID, or a path, so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 phrase names the resource (one experiment) and enumerates the returned content (spec, status, run summary), and 'one experiment' is enough to distinguish it from exp_list. However it lacks an explicit verb and makes no reference to overlapping siblings such as exp_status or exp_runs.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus exp_list, exp_status, or exp_runs, even though those siblings clearly overlap. The agent must infer selection criteria on its own.

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