read_tester_report

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that it locates and parses the report and returns raw HTML with a configurable truncation limit. However, it does not mention error handling behavior (e.g., if no report is found) or the exact structure of the returned data.

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 very concise: one sentence for purpose and a structured Args section. No redundant words, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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 the tool has no output schema and only two parameters, the description is adequate but not complete. It explains input parameters but does not describe the return value beyond mentioning raw HTML truncation, leaving ambiguity about what the parsed data contains.

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 0% description coverage, but the docstring explains both parameters: 'path' is optional and defaults to the latest file, and 'raw_truncate' limits output length. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default values, though details like path format are missing.

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 that the tool locates and parses the latest MT5 tester HTML report using a specific verb-resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'parse_optimization', which might also read reports.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies its use case but lacks explicit context about when not to use it or which sibling tools to prefer for other report types.

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