get_experiment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, which is helpful, but it does not disclose potential behaviors like error responses, permission requirements, or whether the response is paginated. For a simple get this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, clear sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it instantly understandable.

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 get operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. However, it does not clarify what exactly is included in 'detailed information', nor does it differentiate from the many sibling experiment-related tools, leaving the agent with some ambiguity.

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 single parameter experiment_id is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) and the description adds the useful source hint '(from list_experiments)'. This provides enough context for the agent to correctly obtain a valid ID.

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 action (retrieve) and resource (detailed information about a specific experiment) with an ID parameter. It distinguishes from list_experiments and create/delete but does not explicitly differentiate from more specific getters like get_experiment_span or get_experiment_score_averages.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this returns the base experiment object while other tools return spans or averages, nor does it specify any prerequisites or contexts.

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