list_experiment_trials

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature of the operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting trials are immutable and that only one bounded page is returned, which is valuable beyond the annotation fields.

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 dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb, resource, scope, and pagination qualifier, and every word contributes meaning.

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 read-only paginated list operation, the description, annotations, and output schema cover the essential context. The operation is safe, idempotent, scoped to an experiment, and returns one page; no additional context is necessary.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only indirectly maps 'bounded page' to limit and 'for an experiment' to experiment_id. The cursor parameter receives no explanation, and no additional parameter semantics are provided beyond the field names.

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, 'Return', a resource, 'immutable trials', and a clear scope, 'for an experiment.' It also conveys pagination with 'one bounded page,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_experiment or run_experiment.

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 makes it clear this tool is for retrieving a page of trials for an experiment. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and no close alternative listing tool exists among the siblings.

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