List strategies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (id, name, nodeCount, updatedAt), the limit of 100 strategies, and points to get_strategy for more detail. It does not mention behavior beyond the 100 limit (e.g., ordering), but this is a simple read/list operation and the disclosure is strong enough.

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?

Three sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives usage guidance, the third covers parameters and return values. All information is essential, front-loaded, and free of fluff.

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?

For a simple list tool with no mandatory parameters, the description is complete. It explains what it returns, how many results, and when to use a different tool for more detail. No output schema exists, but the description fully compensates.

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 schema has zero parameters, and the description explicitly states 'Parameters: none - the arguments object may be empty or omitted entirely.' This goes beyond the schema by confirming the parameters can be omitted entirely, which is helpful for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the user's saved trading strategies on Pyon.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming which tools to use it before (get_strategy, run_backtest, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to find an existing strategy's id before calling...' and 'to check what already exists before building something new with create_strategy.' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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