get_experiment_span

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states it 'retrieve[s] detailed information' but gives no detail about what that entails—no mention of permissions, side effects (likely none), return format, or error handling. It simply restates the operation without adding behavioral insight beyond the obvious read intent.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could afford to include a bit more guidance without becoming verbose, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 retrieval tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the minimal essentials. It doesn't elaborate on what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., whether it returns full traces or just metadata) and doesn't address potential differences from get_log_detail or get_experiment. Given the richness of sibling tools infants for overlap, a bit more context would improve completeness. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100% – both experiment_id and log_id are described in the schema with context ('from list_experiment_spans', 'from list_experiments'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 retrieves detailed information about a specific span within an experiment. It uses a specific verb ('retrieve') and identifies the resource ('span within an experiment'). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_log_detail or get_experiment, so it's not perfectly differentiated.

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. It does not mention preferred scenarios, exclusions, or relationships with sibling tools like list_experiment_spans or get_log_detail. The 'when' context is entirely absent, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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