Discover Experiment Files

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'discover and classify' without indicating side effects, whether it writes files (output_path suggests possible), permission requirements, or limitations. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's impact or safety profile.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose with no wasted words. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse. However, it is so terse that it verges on under-specification, but as purely a conciseness measure, it earns a high score.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must provide substantial context but offers almost none. It does not state what the tool returns, how classification works, or when to use it. An agent would be unable to call this tool correctly without additional documentation, making it severely incomplete for its complexity.

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%, and the description gives no explanation of the parameters (input_dir, experiment, output_path). The agent must infer meaning solely from names, which are not self-explanatory (e.g., what format for experiment? What does output_path control?). The description adds zero value beyond the schema fields.

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 tool discovers and classifies files belonging to one experiment, providing a clear verb and resource. It is not a tautology and is distinct from siblings like parse_analysis_file or search_compound, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself. It lacks specifics on file types or classification scheme, but the core purpose is understandable.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. An agent cannot determine if this tool is appropriate for a given task compared to similar file-related operations, so it fails to support tool selection.

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