tool_list_optimizations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that the tool is a read-only listing operation and that results include best parameters, but it does not describe ordering, pagination, or how the limit and symbol parameters affect output. For a simple list tool this is adequate but not rich.

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 wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the follow-up usage note earns its place by adding context for when to invoke the tool.

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 low complexity (two optional parameters with defaults) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and usage adequately. The main gap is the unstated meaning of the 'symbol' parameter, but this is a minor omission for a listing tool.

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%, and the description does not explain either 'limit' or 'symbol'. The description adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, so an agent must infer the purpose of these parameters from their names and defaults, 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('your previous optimizations / parameter sweeps'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like tool_list_backtests and tool_get_optimization_results by focusing on listing past optimization runs.

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 second sentence 'Use this to review past optimization runs and their best parameters' provides a clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names make the distinction between listing optimizations vs. backtests or fetching detailed results reasonably clear.

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