Get Experiment Details

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

Annotations already provide safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true). The description adds behavioral context beyond what annotations convey: it explains the tool returns 'complete experiment metadata including all associated files, quality metrics, controls, replicate information, and audit status.' No contradictions with annotations; this is excellent transparency.

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 concise with minimal sentences, each earning its place. It is well-structured with clear sections: purpose, when-to-use, related tools, parameters, and returns. No redundant information.

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 (one parameter, rich annotations, output schema exists), the description fully explains the return value (files, quality metrics, controls, replicates, audit status). It covers all necessary context for proper invocation.

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?

Only one parameter (accession) exists, and schema coverage is 0% (no description in schema). The description provides an example ('ENCSR133RZO') and explains it is an ENCODE experiment accession, adding meaning beyond the schema's title. While schema coverage is low, the description compensates well.

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 tool retrieves full details for a specific ENCODE experiment by accession ID, using precise verbs ('Get full details') and resource ('specific ENCODE experiment'). It distinguishes from siblings like encode_list_files (lists files) and encode_compare_experiments (comparison), so the agent can select it correctly.

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 includes a 'WHEN TO USE' section specifying when to use this tool ('when you have a specific accession and need full details including files, quality metrics, and audit status'). It also lists related tools, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusion conditions.

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