uplus_list_experiments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; 'List' plus an output schema implies a read-only operation, and the mention of 'submission state' is useful extra context beyond the name. It still omits auth requirements, pagination, and whether results cover all experiments or a filtered set.

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?

One short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though slightly under-specified rather than genuinely terse-and-complete.

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?

Since an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and the description covers scope and the notable 'submission state' field. Given a single-parameter read tool, the remaining gaps (auth, pagination) are minor.

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% with a single required parameter, so the description must compensate. 'For one course' does clarify that course_id scopes the result to a single course, which is the key semantic, but the expected ID format (numeric vs string identifier) is left unstated.

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 ('List') and resource ('experiments') plus the scope ('one course') and an extra data point ('submission state'). This separates it from siblings like uplus_list_homeworks or uplus_list_courses by resource name, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 phrase 'for one course' implies the tool is scoped by course_id, and the listing nature is implicit in 'List'. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. whether login is required, cf. the uplus_check_login sibling), and no stated alternative for other resource types.

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