QuantConnect

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

Annotations only provide a title ('Read live logs'), so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that logs update 'about every 5 minutes,' which is useful context about refresh rates. However, it doesn't cover other critical behaviors like permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The two sentences are efficient and avoid redundancy. However, the second sentence about snapshot updates, while useful, could be integrated more smoothly, and the overall brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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 complexity (5 nested parameters with 0% schema coverage) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, usage scenarios, or behavioral details beyond update frequency. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't provide enough context for the agent to understand how to invoke the tool effectively or interpret results.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters at all, failing to compensate for this gap. It doesn't explain what 'model', 'projectId', 'algorithmId', 'startLine', 'endLine', or 'format' mean or how they affect the log retrieval, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance beyond the schema's structure.

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: 'Get the logs of a live algorithm.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('logs of a live algorithm'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'read_live_algorithm' or 'read_backtest', which might also involve reading algorithm-related data.

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 minimal usage guidance. It mentions that 'The snapshot updates about every 5 minutes,' which implies a timing constraint, but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for real-time vs. historical logs, or compared to other 'read_' tools). No explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites are given.

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