run_backtest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only says the tool runs and stores a backtest. It does not disclose side effects like terminal selection, disk usage, blocking behavior, timeouts, or what the run_id means operationally. The 'store' behavior is a small positive, but important behavioral traits are missing.

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 single sentence is efficient and front-loaded with the core action, but it is under-specified for a tool with 11 parameters and meaningful behavioral complexity. Conciseness alone is not enough when so much operational context is absent.

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?

This tool has high parameter count, no output schema, no annotations, and many related siblings, yet the description covers only the basic action. It fails to explain return values, how run_id is used, prerequisites, failure modes, or any relationship to the broader backtest workflow.

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% and there are 11 parameters, but the description adds no meaning to any parameter. There is no mention of date formats, symbol/timeframe expectations, deposit defaults, inputs object, or timeout semantics, so an agent has almost no help beyond raw property 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 states a specific action ('Run'), a specific resource ('one official MT5 Strategy Tester backtest'), and a concrete outcome ('store it under a unique run_id'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like run_batch or walk_forward at a high level, even without naming 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_batch, walk_forward, or smoke_test. The word 'one' implies a single backtest, but there is no explicit context about prerequisites, sizing, or selection criteria.

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