audit_backtest_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool audits a report but does not describe any side effects, permissions needed, output format, or behavior when gates fail. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates return-value ambiguity, but other behavioral aspects remain undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any redundant words or filler. It is appropriately concise for a tool with a single parameter.

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 tool has low complexity (one parameter) and an output schema, so the description's brevity is acceptable. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral detail, leaving some context gaps. It is a minimal viable description but falls short of being comprehensive.

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 input schema defines only 'report_json' as a string, but the description does not explain how this parameter relates to the BacktestReport being audited. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add any meaning about the parameter's content, format, or usage.

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 verb 'audit' and the resource 'BacktestReport', and specifies the scope of the audit ('timing, cost, split, and evidence gates'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_etf_snapshot or compare_etf_snapshots, which target different resources or actions.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.

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