get_experiment

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what data is read, but does not mention side effects (though 'Read' implies non-mutating), authentication requirements, error behavior if run_id is invalid, or any constraints. It is minimal and does not disclose potential limitations or security considerations.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the action ('Read') and lists the specific data items. There is no fluff or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description partially covers what is returned (execution state, process IDs, timing, manifest, validation label) but omits critical context such as whether it returns a single object or list, error handling, and any required permissions. It is not fully complete for an agent to call it confidently.

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 schema description coverage is 0% for the single parameter run_id, and the description does not mention it at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory as a run identifier, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 verb 'Read' and specifies the resource (execution state, process IDs, timing, manifest, validation label). It clearly indicates this is a retrieval operation for experiment details, and the tool name 'get_experiment' reinforces that. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_experiments' (which likely returns a list) and 'read_log' (which reads logs), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives, conditions for selection, or exclusions. An agent cannot determine from the description whether to call this instead of list_experiments or read_log.

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