apple_get_experiment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read operation and notes that treatments are included, but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, error behavior, or exact return shape.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with the operation and included data front-loaded. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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-resource GET tool this is minimally adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should do more to explain the returned object structure and the experimentId's source or format.

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 there is one required parameter. The description does not explain experimentId format, where to obtain it, or any constraints beyond what the schema's type/minLength already state.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('product page optimization test', i.e. experiment), and adds scope with 'with its treatments'. It is clear enough to distinguish from list/create/update/delete experiment siblings, though it does not explicitly name the closest alternatives.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus apple_list_experiments, apple_list_experiment_treatments, or other experiment operations. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Get' and the required experimentId.

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