get_experiment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get experiment details' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns partial or complete data, or what happens if the experiment_id doesn't exist. The description provides minimal behavioral context for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. While it's under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured. Every word serves a purpose, making it front-loaded and efficient in terms of word count.

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 has 1 required parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, how to use the parameter, or how this differs from similar tools. For a read operation in a complex environment with many alternatives, more context is needed.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter. The description doesn't mention the 'experiment_id' parameter at all, nor does it explain what format it expects or where to obtain valid IDs. With 1 required parameter that's completely undocumented in both schema and description, the description adds no value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Get experiment details' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_experiment'. It doesn't specify what kind of details are retrieved or differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'get_experiment_by_name' or 'get_experiment_runs'. The description provides minimal value beyond the tool name itself.

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. With siblings like 'get_experiment_by_name' (which likely retrieves by name instead of ID) and 'get_experiment_runs' (which likely retrieves runs rather than experiment details), the description fails to help an agent choose between these options. No context or prerequisites are mentioned.

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