validate_tester_ini

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions validation against official MT5 formats including Leverage=1:100, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid configs, whether it returns detailed errors, or what output the caller can expect.

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 concise sentence with the main action and resource front-loaded. The parenthetical about Leverage=1:100 adds useful validation context, though it is slightly cryptic.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too thin. It leaves the caller uncertain about parameter semantics, return values, side effects, and how validation results are reported, which are essential for invoking the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It indirectly hints that 'config' relates to a tester.ini file, but does not clarify whether config is a file path, raw content, or object, and 'source' is entirely unexplained. This is only minimal compensation for the schema gap.

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 names a specific verb ('Sanity-check'), a concrete resource ('a tester.ini'), and the standard against which it validates ('official MT5 formats'). It is distinguishable from siblings like validate_ea_standard by the resource type, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 implies the tool is used when you have a tester.ini file to validate before running tests or backtests. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives among the sibling tools.

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