get_experiment

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Get details', implying a read operation, but does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or what data is returned. The lack of any annotation makes this a minimal disclosure.

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?

A single, direct sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description is adequate to understand the basic operation but is vague about what 'details' includes. Given the existence of get_experiment_results, clarifying that this returns experiment configuration rather than results would improve completeness.

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 schema already provides a 100% description coverage with 'The experiment ID' for experimentId, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra semantic context, such as the ID format or how to find it, but it doesn't need to compensate because the schema is sufficient.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'details for a specific A/B test experiment', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_experiments (which lists all experiments) and get_experiment_results (which fetches results). The scope 'specific' is explicit and unambiguous.

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 usage context is provided beyond the purpose. The description does not mention when to prefer this over list_experiments or how to obtain the experimentId (e.g., from list_experiments). There is no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions.

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