list_experiments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does state the safety profile explicitly ('Always safe to call; never writes anything'). It also describes the return shape and the pagination detection rule (returned_count vs limit), which is real behavioral context beyond the schema. It stops short of noting auth/permission requirements or rate limits.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and returning shape, then the filter rule and the safety note. Nothing is redundant, though the pagination instruction is slightly operational detail that could be trimmed.

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 return values need not be explained, and the description covers safety and pagination adequately. The significant remaining hole is that over half the input parameters have no semantic documentation anywhere, which an agent would need to call this correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: it names q, tags, and the category/user/status ID filters. Sort, limit, order, scope, state, and offset are left entirely undocumented in both description and schema, which is a meaningful gap for an 11-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search or list elabFTW experiments'), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools such as list_items or list_experiment_templates, so an agent must infer the distinction from the resource name alone.

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?

It gives one concrete routing rule — use dedicated filter arguments for known category/user/status IDs or tags rather than q — which is genuinely useful. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_experiment or list_items, leaving the primary selection decision implied.

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