List Experiment Treatments

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

Annotations already declare the tool as safe (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false). The description adds no behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, such as pagination behavior or rate limits. It does not disclose that the tool returns paginated results (though schema handles that). Minimal added value.

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?

Single sentence, no redundant words, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Efficient and to the point.

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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, a list operation) and good annotations and schema, the description covers the essential purpose and context. However, it lacks a mention of how to use the output or relationships to other tools like creating treatments. For a straightforward list tool, this is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 67% with limit and nextUrl well-documented. The parameter 'experimentId' lacks a description in the schema, and the tool description only implies it's an experiment identifier without clarifying format or required context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description provides marginal additional meaning over the schema.

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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'treatment variants', and the context 'in a Product Page Optimization experiment'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling creation tools like 'asc_create_experiment_treatment' and other list tools like 'asc_list_product_page_experiments'.

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 alternatives, such as when to use 'asc_list_product_page_experiments' first or what distinguishes listing treatments from listing experiments. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tool references.

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