list_strategies

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It declares the tool is read-only and describes what it returns. For a simple listing tool with no parameters, this is sufficient transparency, though it could mention error handling or empty result behavior.

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?

Two concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. No unnecessary words, and every sentence adds value. Highly efficient.

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 description explains the return values (name, status, symbols) despite the absence of an output schema. For a simple listing tool with no parameters, this provides complete contextual information for an AI agent to understand what the tool returns.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information because there are none.

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 lists strategies with specific attributes (name, status, subscribed symbols). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_strategy_state by specifying that it lists all known strategies and their properties.

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 explicit usage cues: 'Use when the user asks "what's running" / "which strategies are active"' and declares the tool is read-only. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools but gives clear context for when to invoke it.

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