get_experience

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: the returned revision tokens enable concurrency-safe correction, hinting the tool is a read-only fetch paired with a versioned update. It still omits whether this is strictly read-only, what permissions are needed, and what happens for a stale id.

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 compact sentence with the tool's core action front-loaded. It earns its length, though the trailing 'revision tokens for safe correction or review' clause is terse enough to be ambiguous rather than merely brief.

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 simple single-param getter this is borderline adequate, and the revision-token mention adds useful context. But with no output schema and no annotations, the description should still specify the id's meaning and roughly what the response contains; both are left to inference.

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 0% and the single required 'id' (uuid) parameter is never mentioned in the description at all. There is no statement of what the id identifies, whether it is an experience id or a belief id, or how revision tokens relate to it, so the parameter is entirely undocumented.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Inspect') with the resource ('experience') and notes it returns revision tokens, so the basic purpose is legible. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like review_experience, experience_history, or pending_experiences, and 'revision tokens' is unexplained jargon an agent must infer.

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 safe correction or review' implies a usage context (fetch state before mutating), which is more than nothing. But it gives no explicit when-to-use rule, no prerequisites, and does not name or contrast with the obvious alternatives review_experience or experience_history.

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