search_experiments

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 action ('List all experiments') without mentioning permissions, pagination, rate limits, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with two parameters and no output schema, making it hard for an agent to predict 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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'List all experiments', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for brevity and clarity in structure.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter usage, behavioral traits, or how to interpret results, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke the tool. More context is needed to bridge the gaps in structured data.

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 undocumented parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what 'name' and 'token' parameters do (e.g., filtering by name or pagination token). This leaves both parameters ambiguous, reducing tool usability.

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 'List all experiments' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('experiments'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_experiment' or 'get_experiment_by_name'. It's adequate but lacks specificity about what 'all' means in context.

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 like 'get_experiment_by_name' or 'get_experiment_runs'. The description implies a broad listing function, but it doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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