exp_template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered structurally. The description adds content context by enumerating what the template contains (factors, levels, runs, preconditions, measures, metrics, criteria, writes_allowed), which is useful but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether the returned spec is meant to be edited in place or re-saved.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the resource and then enumerates its contents; the enumeration is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what the template will include. Slightly run-on but not padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tool is a simple one-parameter template provider. The description covers the template's content scope, leaving only the minor gap of not confirming how the template is consumed relative to siblings.

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%, so the description must carry the burden for the single 'kind' parameter. It partially compensates by naming 'kind: dosing_fill', but it only echoes the schema's default value and never explains what the parameter controls or what other kinds exist.

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 the tool provides a complete example experiment spec for editing, which is a clear resource, but it uses a noun phrase ('A complete example experiment spec to edit') rather than an action verb, leaving the agent to infer that this returns/creates a template. It also does not distinguish itself from siblings like exp_get or exp_list, so the agent cannot tell from the description alone why it would pick the template over an actual experiment spec.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The agent must infer that this is the starting point before building a real spec, but nothing in the text states that context.

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