smoke_test

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes the overall process and success condition but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether deployment affects existing terminals), failure modes, or cleanup. It also does not explain the 'journal scan' process. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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?

Two clear, well-structured sentences. Front-loaded with the action and followed by the success condition. No redundant words.

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 the high-level workflow and return condition. However, it omits details on parameter purposes and potential side effects, which are important given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema). It is moderately complete.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not describe any parameter meanings, such as source (likely code), expert_name, symbol, period, days, or timeout_sec. Agents must infer from context, which is insufficient.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Compile, deploy, run a 1-day headless backtest, and scan the journal for runtime errors.' It specifies the sequence of actions and the success condition (returns ok:true only if all pass). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compile, deploy_ea, run_backtest, which are individual steps.

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 implies the tool is for quick validation but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like compile+deploy_ea+run_backtest. A sentence like 'Use this for a quick sanity check before full testing' would improve clarity. The context of sibling tools helps but is not leveraged in the description.

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