validate_strategy_no_lookahead

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses it is heuristic, not a proof, and lists specific patterns checked. Missing explanation of return value (e.g., list of warnings) which is important since output schema is absent.

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—a few sentences that front-load the core purpose and then detail. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 lack of output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., a list of flagged issues). It also does not differentiate from the sibling 'validate_strategy'. These gaps reduce completeness.

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% for the single parameter 'code', so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's description, only implying the code is the source to analyze.

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 is a static-analysis check for lookahead bias, a specific backtest bug. It uses a precise verb ('Walks the strategy code's AST and flags') and names the resource (strategy code). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'validate_strategy' by focusing on lookahead bias only.

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 'Run before trusting any backtest result' and mentions limitations (false negatives), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct to an alternative like 'validate_strategy' for other issues.

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