get_next_experiment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful failure mode (rejection on exhausted budget) and budget reporting behavior. It stops short of covering permissions, idempotency, or the nature of the configuration returned, so it is partial rather than complete.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the core action. The repeated '(commitment 5)' parenthetical and 'Enforcement: commitment 5' are somewhat redundant, costing a little efficiency.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the single parameter is fully documented. Still missing is how this relates to sibling experiment tools and any explanation of the 'optimizer role'/'commitment 5' domain framing, which an agent must interpret unaided.

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 100% for the single programme_id parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 clear verb and resource ('Get the next experiment configuration') and adds the source ('from the optimizer role'). However, it does not distinguish itself from related siblings like design_experiment or get_incumbent, so an agent gets the purpose but not the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named for comparison. The only condition given is a failure precondition ('rejects when budget is exhausted'), which is behavioral rather than routing guidance.

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