smoke_test

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It discloses the high-level pipeline and journal scanning, but it does not mention deployment/terminal modifications, process creation, cleanup behavior, or what the journal scan actually does with findings.

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 dense, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though the brevity sacrifices important behavioral and parameter context.

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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is not complete enough. It defines the basic stages but leaves the agent without parameter semantics, expected output/return values, or failure behavior.

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 the description explains none of the 11 parameters. Even the required 'source' parameter is only loosely associated with 'compile/deploy', and fields like model, period, from_date, to_date, expert_name, and timeout_sec are entirely unexplained.

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 specific verbs—compile, deploy, run, scan—and names the resource (a smoke test over an EA source). It implies a multi-stage workflow that distinguishes it from a plain backtest or compile, although it does not explicitly contrast with run_backtest or compile.

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 'short official tester pass' and the tool name imply it is for quick verification, but the description does not explicitly state when to use smoke_test versus run_backtest, run_batch, or walk_forward. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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