read_strategy_report

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a read-only parse operation, but does not mention error handling, performance implications, or file existence requirements. Acceptable but not thorough.

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 a single, concise sentence that effectively communicates purpose and output without unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers basic purpose and output, but lacks details on error conditions, file size limits, or a comparison with similar tools like 'read_log'. Without an output schema, more structure of the returned data would be beneficial.

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?

The single parameter 'path' is not described in the schema (0% coverage). The description provides context by specifying the report type (MT5 Strategy Tester HTML), implying what the path should point to, but does not detail format or constraints.

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 action ('Parse') and resource ('an MT5 Strategy Tester HTML report'), and specifies the output format ('summary dict and raw table rows'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'read_log' which parse logs, not strategy reports.

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 the tool is used for MT5 Strategy Tester HTML reports, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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