scaffold_strategy

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the output compiles and passes validate_strategy, includes Next steps with docs_search queries, and mentions supported languages and kinds. No contradictions, but it could mention lack of side effects.

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 front-loaded with purpose and has clear sections for usage, language, kinds, and next steps. Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise with bullet points.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does, when to use, required input, and output context (Next steps). It is sufficient for an AI 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by enumerating language options (python, node, codon, quickjs) and strategy shapes (bar-driven, trade-driven, hybrid) beyond the schema's enum descriptions.

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 returns a starter FLOX strategy class that compiles and passes validate_strategy. It specifies verb 'Return' and resource 'starter FLOX strategy class', and distinguishes from siblings like validate_strategy and get_example.

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?

Explicitly says 'use this as the *first* thing you write when the user asks to build a new strategy' and instructs to ask the user for language before calling. Also provides alternatives: 'instead of writing the FLOX bookkeeping from memory'.

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