register_strategy

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that the spec is validated before registration. Annotations indicate openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description does not elaborate on side effects or state changes (e.g., storing the strategy), which would be expected given the open world hint. No contradictions 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 two sentences, free of fluff. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides usage guidance and validation detail. Every sentence adds 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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and openWorldHint annotations, the description is too brief. It does not mention the return value (e.g., strategy_id), error handling, or prerequisites. The mention of run_backtest provides context among siblings, but completeness is sacrificed for brevity.

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 schema description coverage at 43% (low), the description adds meaning by clarifying that the spec file must contain entry_rules and exit_rules, which is not evident from the schema. However, it does not explain the purpose of other parameters like 'author' or 'description', leaving gaps.

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 a specific verb 'register' and identifies the resource as 'custom strategy spec JSON'. It clearly states the action and the required spec contents (entry_rules, exit_rules). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'validate_strategy', which might be confused as a similar action.

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 provides a usage hint: after registration, the strategy can be backtested via run_backtest(strategy_id=...). It implies that registration is a prerequisite for backtesting. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool, nor does it suggest alternatives like 'validate_strategy' for validation-only tasks.

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