run_experiment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and does an excellent job by explicitly stating 'documentation-only tool.' This discloses that the tool will not execute experiments or produce side effects, which is a critical behavioral trait for an agent to know.

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 concise sentences that front-load the when-to-use instruction and immediately clarify the documentation-only nature. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema documentation tool, the description is completely sufficient. It fully communicates the purpose and scope, and the sibling tools provide enough context for the agent to distinguish this from action-oriented tools.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so per guidelines the baseline is 4. The description appropriately says nothing about parameters because there are none to explain.

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 identifies the tool as a documentation resource for understanding how to run experiments and evaluations in LangSmith. It explicitly says 'documentation-only tool,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actual actions like listing or creating resources.

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?

Provides an explicit instruction: 'Call this tool when you need to understand how to run experiments and evaluations.' This states exactly when to use the tool, making the usage condition unambiguous.

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