get_experiment_result

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that the tool is a read of a stored run returning result summary, provenance observations, and metadata. It omits behavior on failure paths — e.g. what happens if run_id refers to an unfinished or nonexistent run — and states no permission or side-effect profile, though "Retrieve" reasonably implies read-only.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the payload. "full provenance" in sentence one and "provenance observations" in sentence two is mild redundancy, but nothing else is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation here, and the description correctly sketches what comes back. Given zero annotation coverage and zero parameter documentation, a definition this short leaves real gaps around preconditions, run_id sourcing, and failure behavior for a provenance-sensitive lookup.

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% for the single run_id parameter, so the description is obliged to compensate and does not: it never says where run_id comes from (presumably list_experiment_runs or run_experiment), its format, or what an invalid value produces. The only added meaning is that the id must denote a completed run.

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?

"Retrieve a completed experiment run's results" gives a specific verb and resource, and the "completed" qualifier implicitly separates it from run_experiment, complete_experiment, and list_experiment_runs in the sibling set. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must still infer the routing.

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 word "completed" implies a precondition (the run must exist and be finished) and thus a when-not, but this is never stated as guidance and no alternative tool is named for listing, starting, or completing runs. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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