get_experiment_results

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool returns data, implying a read-only operation, but does not confirm side effects, permissions, rate limits, or handling of edge cases (e.g., missing experiment_id, no runs). The brevity leaves uncertainty about its behavior.

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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. However, it is slightly too terse given that it needs to convey more detail for completeness. It earns a 4 for efficiency without being 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no output schema), the description minimally covers what is returned (status, metrics, log path) and scope (latest run). It lacks information on error handling, multiple runs, and return format. It is adequate for a basic tool but not fully complete.

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, has 0% schema description coverage. The tool description adds only 'for an experiment,' which is redundant. It does not explain the parameter's format (e.g., string ID or name), how to obtain it, or its relation to other tools. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource: 'the latest run's status, metrics, and log path for an experiment.' It specifies scope (single experiment via experiment_id) and differentiates from sibling tools like get_experiment (which likely returns experiment metadata) and list_experiments. The mention of 'latest run' adds specificity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its numerous siblings (e.g., get_experiment, run_experiment, validate_experiment). It does not state alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios to avoid. The context is only implied through the purpose, which is insufficient for an agent to decide confidently.

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