create_experiment_from_idea

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions creating a folder with specified contents, but omits side effects (e.g., does it modify an idea?), the role of 'auto_run', and whether the tool is destructive or idempotent. This is insufficient for a creation tool.

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 sentence of 12 words, which is efficient but omits critical detail. It could be expanded slightly to cover parameter usage without becoming verbose.

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?

With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to cover key aspects like return value, mode options, or auto_run function. It is not complete enough for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (idea_id, mode, auto_run). The listed components (baseline, tests, etc.) do not map to parameter names or values, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them.

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 creates a reproducible experiment folder from an idea, listing specific components (baseline, tests, config, metrics). This verb+resource combination is distinct from siblings like 'create_idea' and '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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., run_experiment, create_idea). The description does not specify prerequisites, such as requiring an existing idea, or when auto-run might be appropriate.

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