run_backtest

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavior. It explains the 'wait' blocking behavior, timeout, and return values, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., terminal state changes) or error conditions.

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 extremely concise: a single-line title followed by a bulleted list of arguments. Every sentence adds value, with no 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?

Given no output schema, the description covers return values well (returncode, elapsed_sec, log path). However, it omits error conditions and prerequisites (e.g., terminal already running).

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful context for all 4 parameters: 'config' path, 'wait' blocking, 'timeout_sec' duration, and 'portable' flag. However, more detail on config format or timeout behavior would improve it.

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 specifies a clear verb-resource pair ('Launch terminal with /config:<tester.ini>') and distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'kill_terminal' or 'select_terminal' by focusing on backtesting.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'smoke_test' or 'compile_and_deploy'), and lacks context about prerequisites or failure scenarios.

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