compare_experiments

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it fetches each experiment's name and results in parallel, and it explicitly discloses that attack type is unavailable and only approximated via a best-effort lookup.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core comparison purpose and returned fields, followed by useful execution and limitation notes. Every sentence contributes information without excess.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately lists the fields returned: dataset name, threshold method, threshold, detection rate, average score, and runtime. It also explains the attack-type omission and parallel fetch behavior. It could be slightly more complete with ordering or error behavior, but it is adequate for this simple comparison tool.

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 single required parameter, experiment_ids, is self-explanatory from its name and array-of-integers schema, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description only says 'multiple experiments' and does not explain where to obtain the IDs, how invalid IDs are handled, or reinforce the min/max constraints.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Compare multiple experiments side by side', and then enumerates the exact comparison fields. This distinguishes it from single-experiment siblings such as get_experiment_results or list_experiments without ambiguity.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Compare multiple experiments side by side', but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_experiment_results or list_experiments. It also does not mention prerequisites or exclusions beyond the attack-type limitation.

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