list_experiments

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

Annotations already cover readOnly and idempotent, so the bar is lower, and the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral constraint: there is no server-side status filtering and results must be filtered client-side. It omits result ordering, pagination behavior, and what a page of results contains, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the purpose comes first and the client-side filtering caveat follows immediately with the enumerated status values inline.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the one non-obvious fact (no server-side status filter) and the valid status vocabulary. Only minor gaps remain around pagination expectations and result ordering.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden, and it does implicitly document the absence of a status parameter while enumerating the valid status values. It says nothing about skip/limit semantics, though the schema exposes defaults, bounds, and types for both, so an agent can still call correctly.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("List ... experiments") and adds a meaningful scope qualifier ("the caller's own"), so an agent knows this is owner-scoped listing rather than a global search. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like compare_experiments or get_experiment_status, leaving that differentiation to be inferred.

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?

Gives one concrete usage rule: filter by status client-side because no server-side filter exists. However, it names no alternatives and gives no guidance on when to reach for this versus get_experiment_status, get_experiment_results, or compare_experiments, so usage is only partially implied.

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