tool_get_backtest_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the operation type (checking status, not modifying anything) and the exact return values: status enumeration values and progress percentage. It could add polling behavior semantics, but for a simple status tool this is adequately transparent.

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 sentences with no filler: the purpose is front-loaded, and the return contract is stated briefly. Every sentence adds value.

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 low-complexity tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and what the caller receives. It lacks explicit guidance about sourcing backtest_id and polling expectations, but these are minor given the simple schema and output schema presence.

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 compensate. It adds only indirect meaning: backtest_id is the identifier of the backtest whose status is checked. This is minimally sufficient for a single self-descriptive parameter, but it does not state where the ID comes from or provide format/example guidance.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Check the status of a running backtest' and explicitly lists the expected return values. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling results tools and from optimization/portfolio backtest status tools by naming 'backtest' as the focus.

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 usage after a backtest has been started and before retrieving results, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus tool_get_optimization_status or tool_get_portfolio_backtest_status. There is no clear exclusion or alternative routing guidance.

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