get_backtest

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

Annotations already disclose readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond those annotations by specifying the returned statuses, the inclusion of report path and journal notes once complete, and the newest-first ordering. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 entire description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose, packs the status values and result contents, and appends the run_id-less variant without filler. Every part earns its place.

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 read-only query with fully documented parameters, annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The main gap is that its 'without run_id, lists all runs' mode overlaps with the sibling list_backtests, and the description does not disambiguate when to use which 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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the 'newest first' ordering detail for the run_id-less case, but otherwise does not add meaning beyond the schema. tail_lines is not mentioned in the description, though the schema documents it adequately.

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 identifies the resource ('background backtest') and the action (return status), and names the possible statuses: running, completed, timeout, cancelled. It also documents the list-all behavior when run_id is omitted, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related sibling list_backtests.

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 gives a clear usage rule: omit run_id to list all runs newest first, which guides the agent for the optional-parameter case. It does not explicitly say when to prefer list_backtests or read_tester_report, but for the core status-checking scenario the guidance is sufficient.

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