backtest_status

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

Annotations cover safety hints (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: a desktop-app and licence prerequisite, that a finished run is recorded once in the day's session registry, and that an unknown run_id is a named error. The registry-writing note also plausibly explains the otherwise odd readOnlyHint=false.

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 blocking prerequisite about installing the desktop app is front-loaded, which is useful for an agent, and the remaining sentences are tight and each carry information. Slightly more verbose than strictly necessary, but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing return values at each run state, the error behavior for unknown ids, licence requirements, and the registry side effect. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With a single required parameter and 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents run_id as 'returned by backtest_graph,' which the description merely echoes. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and no new syntax or format detail is added.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Get the state of a graph run started by backtest_graph,' and enumerates what is returned at each stage (status/progress/message while running; verdict/survivors/multiplicity when done). It anchors the tool to its producer sibling, backtest_graph, so an agent can place it immediately.

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?

It gives explicit triggers: use after backtest_graph with background=true, or when a foreground run hit its timeout. There is no true alternative status tool among the siblings, so nothing needs naming. Clear context with no ambiguity, though no explicit when-not condition.

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