tool_list_backtests

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does indicate that this is a read-only listing operation ('List'), scopes to 'your previous' backtests, and clarifies the output is 'summary info.' However, it does not disclose ordering, whether running/queued backtests are included, or any filtering behavior beyond what the schema implies.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does; the second provides actionable context. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple listing tool with an output schema, the description gives adequate high-level context. However, with no schema descriptions and no annotation coverage, the optional limit and symbol filters are not explained, and no guidance directs the agent to related result/status tools. The description is minimally sufficient but has clear gaps.

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 needs to compensate by explaining limit and symbol. It does not mention either parameter, leaving the agent to infer meaning solely from parameter names and defaults. The parameter names are self-explanatory but the description adds no semantic value about them.

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 a specific action ('List') and a specific resource ('your previous backtests') with the type of output ('summary info'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tool_get_backtest_results, which would provide full results, and tool_list_optimizations, which covers a different resource.

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 a clear use case: 'review past experiments and compare strategies.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives such as tool_get_backtest_results for detailed output, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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