read_optimization

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds that all passes are used for ranking ('Ranking uses every pass'), which is useful context beyond the annotations, clarifying the internal behavior.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the core purpose before the caveat. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what it reads and returns, the second adds behavioral guidance and names siblings. No filler or 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 that an output schema exists)Skip, the description need not explain return values. It covers key aspects: what the tool does, its scope, how to select it over siblings, and a critical usage caveat. With 7 parameters but 0 required compartments, the simple and complete description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what is in the schema, but it does hint at the purpose of parameter selection via 'top N passes by criterion', aligning with top_n and criterion. No additional info is needed.

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 states a specific verb (read) and resource (MT5 optimisation cache .opt), and lists the key outputs (header, optimised inputs, pass count, top N passes). It also names two sibling tools (parse_optimization, top_passes) that it replaces, clearly distinguishing its scope.

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 explicitly says it replaces parse_optimization and top_passes, signaling when to choose this tool over those alternatives. It also provides a usage caveat: 'The best pass of a genetic run is a biased sample; prefer robust neighbourhoods' – guiding the agent on how to interpret results and when to be cautious.

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