Experiment Autoplan

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

With readOnlyHint=false the annotation signals this is not a pure read, but the description ('select ... without training') reads like a non-mutating selection, leaving it unclear whether the call persists any artifacts or state. It adds only the 'without training' scope note and omits auth requirements, side effects, or whether the plan is saved.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler; every word earns its place. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a tool of this complexity.

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 tool with a nested request schema, enum task types, constraint sub-object, and a non-read-only profile, a single sentence is inadequate. The output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but usage, side effects, and parameter meaning are all missing.

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 nested `request` object carries many sub-fields (task enum, objective, constraints, hf_* options) with no textual documentation. The description provides no parameter meaning whatsoever, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a concrete verb ('Select') and specific resources ('live models, Cookbook recipes, and pinned HF candidates') plus a discriminating qualifier ('without training'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not name or contrast itself with close siblings like recipe_plan or training_plan, which also produce selections/plans.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The sibling set contains several planning-style tools (recipe_plan, training_plan, experiment_artifacts), and the description does nothing to route an agent between them.

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