get_experiment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It adds the behavioral trait 'immutable', which goes slightly beyond annotations, but offers no detail on error behavior, return format, or permissions. This is adequate given the strong annotation coverage.

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 well-structured sentence of six words. Every word contributes meaning, and the key information (return, one, immutable, experiment protocol) is front-loaded. There is zero waste.

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 getter with one parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks usage context (when to fetch a protocol vs. a fault experiment or reduction) and does not clarify the relationship between an experiment protocol and other entities, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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%, meaning the description does not explain the experiment_id parameter. The single parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description fails to add any semantic value, such as a format, source, or how to obtain a valid ID. The description should compensate for the lack of schema documentation but does not.

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 clearly states the tool returns a single immutable experiment protocol, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_fault_experiment or get_reduction, but the resource type is distinct and the qualifier 'immutable' adds useful specificity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent decide between get_experiment and similar getter tools in the sibling list.

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