portfolio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful traits: `save` validates a contract and writes to `portfolios/<id>.json`, `check` reports unservable positions with rejection reasons, `exposure` values at the scenario's macro calculation month. However, `delete`'s destructiveness/irreversibility and permission requirements are never addressed.

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?

Front-loaded with the action list, which is the right structure, and it is short. But the compression goes too far — telegraphic clauses and inconsistent backtick markup make it denser than it needs to be, and half the actions get no sentence at all.

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?

A six-action dispatcher with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage explains only three actions, says nothing about `delete` semantics, and never clarifies which parameters apply to which action. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the call-shape gaps remain significant.

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 description coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. The `<id>.json` path hints that `id` is a filename component and `save`'s contract check hints at `spec`, but `scenario` and `action` values are only implicitly defined, and usage per action (which params each action needs) is never stated.

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?

Names the resource (stored portfolios) and enumerates all six valid actions, which is essential because the `action` parameter has no enum. It distinguishes itself from siblings like `scenario` and `run`, but leaves the domain meaning of a 'portfolio' and the shape of a 'spec' unstated.

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 text describes what `save`, `check`, and `exposure` do, implying when to reach for them (writing, validating coverage, valuing), but never states when to use `list`/`get`/`delete` or how to choose between them. It gives no exclusions and no pointer to a sibling tool that might be a better fit.

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