Diagnose strategy (AI debugger)

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it runs a fresh backtest, waits up to 300s, returns a diagnosis, up to 10 issues, and an optional agentRequest. It also explains timeout error handling with jobId, which is crucial for an async-like operation. This is thorough and honest.

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 compact yet dense: first sentence states purpose and core behavior, second gives usage context, third details parameters, fourth explains return value, fifth explains timeout. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose, and it is organized logically.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use, parameters, return structure, timeout behavior, and how to use the result with edit_strategy. It also references sibling tools for finding strategyId. This is complete for a diagnostic 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?

Schema coverage is 100% giving baseline 3, but the description adds valuable context: it explains the question is optional and gives an example, and clarifies that omitting it yields a general health check. It also reiterates the required nature of strategyId, adding practical usage nuance 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 'analyze a strategy, running a fresh sample backtest as evidence' and distinguishes it from siblings like run_backtest by focusing on causal diagnosis. It explicitly mentions producing an edit request for edit_strategy, making its role unique.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when run_backtest shows zero trades, poor returns, or confusing diagnostics...'. It also provides a fallback for timeout via get_job_status, and implies not to use it if you only need a backtest. This is clear and actionable.

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