get_backtest_artifacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure (JSON with ok, job_id, artifacts) and artifact entry fields, which is helpful. However, it does not mention error behavior (missing job_id), path details, or permissions, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise and well-structured with a clear summary line followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan.

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 simple two-parameter listing tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides the essential purpose, parameters, and return format. It lacks edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid job_id) but is otherwise sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

The Args section documents both parameters: job_id as 'Backtest job identifier' and kind with an explicit list of valid filters plus the empty-all behavior. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, adding meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 opener 'List on-disk artifact paths for a backtest job' uses a specific verb (List) and resource (artifact paths), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_backtest_result (result data) and list_backtest_jobs (job listing). The filter kinds are enumerated, reinforcing scope.

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 clarifies that kind is an optional filter and that empty returns all kinds, giving clear context for when to use this tool with filtering. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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