run_backtest

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

Annotations indicate idempotence and non-destructiveness, but the description adds return value details (Sharpe, drawdown, win rate, P&L). It does not discuss behavioral traits like state changes, data persistence, or execution time. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core action and key outputs. It is concise without unnecessary detail, though it could benefit from a brief breakdown for clarity.

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 nested 'spec' object and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the StrategySpec structure, capital usage, or execution behavior, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the two parameters. It mentions 'StrategySpec' but does not define its structure or the 'capital' parameter, leaving the agent with minimal guidance beyond parameter names.

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 action ('Run a backtest') and the resource ('StrategySpec'), with specific return metrics listed. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'optimize_strategy' or 'evaluate_strategy_for_prop_fund' by focusing on backtesting, but does not explicitly contrast them.

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 indicates what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., optimize_strategy). Usage context is implied but not clarified, leaving the agent to infer appropriateness.

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