list_experiments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a meaningful safety-related behavior, and mentions pagination. However, it does not disclose ordering, whether results include all experiment states, or what happens when pagination boundaries are exceeded. Still, the core behavioral trait is covered.

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 two short sentences with no filler. 'List persistent experiments' states the core action, 'paginated' covers the parameters, and 'Read-only' covers safety. Every word earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple list operation with two optional, well-understood pagination parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, that it is read-only, and that it supports pagination. Additional details like result ordering or default page size would be nice, but they are not essential for correct invocation.

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 compensate. It does not explain limit or offset individually, but the word 'paginated' conveys how these parameters function together. Since the parameters are simple integers with defaults and self-explanatory titles, the minimal description provides sufficient semantics without much additional detail.

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: 'List persistent experiments.' It also signals pagination and read-only behavior, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_experiment, create_experiment, and submit_experiment. The name alone would be somewhat generic, but the description adds enough specificity to make the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 implies use when listing experiments in a paginated, read-only fashion, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The read-only hint contrasts with create_experiment and submit_experiment, and 'list' contrasts with get_experiment, but these contrasts are left for the agent to infer rather than explicitly guided.

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