Compare Experiments

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers. It discloses the exact return payload (test results, failing test names, exit codes, change size, duration, artifact counts, recommendation) and a non-obvious trait: destroyed experiments remain comparable because findings were recorded before teardown. This adds real value beyond the schema.

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?

Well-organized with clear lead-in markers (USE THIS, RETURNS). The purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and return/behavioral notes. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 the return-value summary is a bonus rather than a necessity. The destroyed-experiments note covers a likely edge case, and the minItems constraint is echoed. Slightly more on comparison criteria between experiments could push this to 5, but nothing needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters fully documented including the labels example. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond echoing the 'two or more' minItems constraint, so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Compare two or more experiments side by side') with a clear distinct scope from siblings. It is clearly a comparison/analysis tool, not a creation or execution one, so an agent can separate it from create_experiment, execute_experiment, and get_experiment without opening schemas.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use scenarios ('three candidate fixes, two runtime versions... recommend one') and instructs to run each approach in its own experiment first. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause or named alternatives, but the use-case is unambiguous enough that the agent can route correctly.

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