get_experiment_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads the command line recorded in the run's own output, and emphasizes that it recovers 'what actually ran rather than what was intended'. This is valuable behavioral context for a read-only introspection tool, though it does not mention auth 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?

The description is three concise sentences, each adding value. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the mechanism, and the third provides usage guidance. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description appropriately skips explaining return values. It covers what the tool does, how it works, and when to use it. However, it does not mention the format of the returned configuration (e.g., as a JSON object or command-line string), which would be helpful for the agent to know how to use the output.

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% (the parameter names are not described in the schema), so the description must compensate. The description does not directly describe the 'experiment_id' parameter, but the context of 'recover the exact configuration a run was trained with' strongly implies that the parameter identifies the run. With only one required parameter and no enums, this is sufficiently clear.

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 clearly states the verb 'recover' and the resource 'exact configuration a run was trained with', distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_experiments' (which lists experiments) and 'run_experiment' (which creates a new run). It explains that the configuration is read from the run's own output, adding specificity.

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 explicitly says 'Use it before proposing a new run based on an existing one', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the siblings, though the context implies it's for inspection before modification.

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