get_experiment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds the idea of reconstruction from durable evidence, which implies the result is derived rather than simply fetched, but it does not disclose what happens when evidence is missing or how expensive reconstruction may be.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted filler and no repetition of schema or annotation details. The phrase 'one bounded experiment outcome' is compact but slightly cryptic, which costs it a perfect score.

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?

With output schema and annotations available, the description does not need to explain return shape or safety, and the core purpose is present. However, the description leaves 'bounded' undefined and does not clarify how an experiment relates to runs, captures, or other evidence-producing tools, making it just adequate rather than complete.

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?

The schema has one required string parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not meaningfully compensate. It only references 'experiment' at the resource level, adding little beyond the schema's own 'Experiment Id' title, so an agent still has to infer what identifier is expected and how to obtain it.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Reconstruct', and a concrete resource, 'one bounded experiment outcome', and adds a mechanism, 'from durable evidence'. This makes its core purpose understandable, though the phrases 'bounded' and 'durable evidence' are jargon-like and do not sharply distinguish it from other get_* tools.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_run, get_evidence, list_experiment_trials, or get_fault_experiment. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent decide between this and its many siblings.

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