list_experiments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds almost nothing on the behavioral side — no mention of pagination, result ordering, or what happens with an invalid versionId. The only extra information is the version scoping, which is essentially implied by the parameter.

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 sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a trivial one-parameter list tool, though it is so terse that it leaves obvious questions unaddressed rather than having its sentences earn extra value.

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?

There is no output schema and the annotations cover the safety profile, so the definition is complete enough to safely invoke. It stops short of saying whether results are paginated or what fields each experiment carries, which an agent may want to know before chaining into get_experiment or get_experiment_results.

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 100%, so versionId is fully documented in the schema and the description needs to do little. It reinforces the parameter's meaning ('for an app store version') but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond what the schema says; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('A/B test experiments') scoped to an app store version, which separates it plainly from get_experiment, create_experiment, and start/stop_experiment. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the scope is 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?

The 'for an app store version' scope implies when to use it (you have a versionId and want the experiments attached to it), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer get_experiment for a single experiment or what to do if no experiments exist. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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