getAuroraStrategy

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: a specific rate limit, the fact that `aurora_id` is an encoded identifier, and that the response contains both params and backtest metrics.

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: a clear opening purpose statement, a one-sentence rate-limit note, and a focused agent hint. Every sentence adds useful information without unnecessary filler.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only getter with no output schema, the description covers the return shape, parameter origin, fallback behavior when the id is missing, and rate limits. The high-level return summary is sufficient given openWorldHint=true and the simple fetch-by-id nature of the 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?

The schema only defines `aurora_id` as a string with no description, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the id is encoded, previously returned by recommendation endpoints, and is the key needed to fetch the strategy. This gives the agent enough semantic understanding to invoke the tool correctly.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the full Aurora AI strategy (params + backtest metrics)' identified by `aurora_id`. It also distinguishes this tool from the recommendation endpoints by stating the id must come from those endpoints, matching sibling tools like recAuroraHomeAIParams and recExploreStrategy.

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 agent hint explicitly says when to use this tool: when you already have an `aurora_id`, e.g., to refresh backtest metrics or re-display params. It also tells the agent exactly what to do otherwise: call one of the listed recommendation endpoints first.

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