strategy_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one genuine behavioral trait beyond that: it never guesses ambiguous or missing IDs, which tells the agent the returned identifiers are trustworthy and that resolution failures surface rather than being filled in. It says nothing about volume, pagination, or what a 'strategy' entity contains, so the addition is real but thin.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, then the ID-guarantee clause. Nothing is redundant and nothing competes with the primary purpose statement.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only lister with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key correctness guarantee. The remaining gap is that it does not hint at the shape of the returned list or why a read operation takes a tab target and a layout guard, which is a mild but noticeable omission.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including that target_id must come from browser_list_tabs and that an expected_layout_id mismatch aborts before writing. The description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not address why a read-only list tool accepts a tab target ID and a layout guard; the schema carries this dimension entirely.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus scope: 'List every strategy with exact entity IDs.' That is enough to separate it from strategy_status, strategy_get_report, or strategy_scan, which imply single-entity or filtered reads. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not differentiated by explicit reference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. 'Every strategy' hints at an unfiltered enumeration, but the agent must infer on its own whether to pick this over strategy_scan or strategy_status.

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