validate_strategy

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it performs static analysis without executing code, and details the checks performed. This is transparent and sufficient.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover what the tool does and when to use it. Every sentence is necessary and well-structured.

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 has no output schema, and the description omits any mention of return values (e.g., whether it returns passes/fails or detailed warnings). This leaves a gap for the agent. Otherwise, it adequately covers purpose, usage, and behavior for a simple validation 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 sole parameter 'code' has a schema description, and the tool description adds context that the code is a Python source for a strategy module/class and what validations are applied. This adds meaningful 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 it performs static analysis checks on a Python FLOX strategy, listing specific checks (AST parsing, hooks, forbidden patterns) and distinguishes it from execution. It is specific and differentiates from the sibling 'validate_strategy_no_lookahead'.

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 explicitly advises to use this before running user-authored strategy code, providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use or compare with the sibling tool.

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