get_experiment

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Get details' without describing what details are returned, the effect of the 'fields' parameter, error behavior, or any permissions needed. This adds minimal behavioral context.

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 a single sentence of eight words, front-loaded with the verb 'Get', with no redundant or filler content. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

The tool is simple and parameters are fully described in the schema, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not clarify what the response contains or how it differs from get_experiment_results, leaving a notable gap in contextual completeness.

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 100% with both parameters documented (experiment_id and fields). The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but the schema already provides adequate semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get details of a specific experiment (ad study)' clearly states the action (get), resource (experiment/ad study), and specificity (a single experiment). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_experiments (list vs. specific) and get_experiment_results (details vs. results).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of list_experiments for browsing or get_experiment_results for results, nor any exclusions. Usage must be inferred from the name and description.

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