list_backtest_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose data source (SQLite), ordering (newest first), and the full return structure, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or note any side effects or limitations beyond the basic list behavior. The verb 'list' implies non-mutation, but explicit disclosure would be stronger.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Each sentence contributes value: the one-line summary gives the core purpose, the Args section explains both parameters, and the Returns section defines the output shape. No redundant or filler content exists.

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?

The tool is simple (two optional parameters) and has no output schema, so the detailed Returns section is valuable and makes the description reasonably complete. It covers payload structure and field lists. A minor gap is that it doesn't define any maximum or bounds on the limit parameter, but this is not critical for a listing tool.

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 input schema provides only names, types, and defaults (0% schema description coverage). The description compensates fully: it explains the limit parameter with a default and meaning, and the status parameter with example values ('done', 'failed') and behavior for empty string. This adds substantial semantic value beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List recent backtest jobs from SQLite, newest first.' It uses a specific verb ('list'), a specific resource ('backtest jobs'), and a scope ('recent', 'newest first'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_backtest_result, which likely retrieves a single job, and run_backtest_dynamic, which runs new jobs.

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 context (listing recent jobs from SQLite) but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_backtest_result or run_backtest_dynamic. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so the guidance is only implied by the action verb.

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