analyze_bb_snapshot

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does declare 'latest value only' and 'lightweight', which reveals key constraints, but it does not describe output structure, calculation assumptions, or failure behaviors. Partial transparency, not comprehensive.

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 compact and well-structured with mode breakdown and a warning about latest values. It earns its sentences without excess, though the tag-style opening could be clearer for non-Japanese readers.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the 'why' and mode selection but omits semantics for three of four parameters and any indication of return format, leaving an agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 must compensate. Only 'mode' is explained; pair, type, and limit are entirely undocumented despite defaults and constraints being present in the schema. This is a significant gap for an agent selecting values.

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 names a specific indicator (Bollinger Bands), lists its key sub-concepts (BB/squeeze/bandwidth/zScore), and explicitly distinguishes this lightweight BB snapshot from sibling indicator snapshots. It also clarifies the two modes, making the tool's scope immediately clear.

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 provides explicit mode guidance (default vs extended) and directs users needing time-series chart data to prepare_chart_data with indicators ['BB']. This clearly states when to use this tool versus an alternative, leaving little ambiguity.

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