get_experiment_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the return includes full raw text, environment config, and structured details, which implies a read-only fetch. However, it never states read-only status explicitly, permission requirements, or whether a missing/invalid path errors.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the purpose sentence comes first, followed by the parameter gloss. No filler, though the parameter line largely restates the parameter name and could carry more value.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be re-explained. For a single-parameter read tool this is adequate, but it omits how the agent should source a valid file_path and gives no relationship to the timeline sibling, leaving a gap in a multi-tool context.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter, and it does label file_path as the specific path of the experiment note. That is the minimum viable meaning — it adds no format guidance, no relative-vs-absolute hint, and no indication of where a valid path is obtained.

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 (获取/retrieve) and resource (单篇实验笔记/single experiment note), and enumerates what is returned: full original text, environment configuration, and structured details. The '单篇' (single) framing implicitly separates it from the get_experiment_timeline sibling, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 only implied: retrieving one specific note by path, as opposed to the timeline sibling. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over get_experiment_timeline, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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