strategy_scan

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

Annotations already declare the tool is not read-only, is open-world, is not idempotent, and is not destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: sequential execution, report-change verification, restoration of starting chart/inputs, and result export. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the primary action. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves important operational details unstated for a seven-parameter mutation tool.

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 is a complex, non-read-only operation with seven parameters, low schema description coverage, and no output schema. The description covers the high-level workflow but omits error behavior, timeout semantics, detailed variant structure, and what results are exported or returned.

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 only 29%, so the description needs to compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'explicit parameter variants' and restoring starting state at a high level, but gives no meaning for on_error, timeout_per_variant_ms, entity_id, or the structure of variant overrides.

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 states a specific multi-step operation: running explicit parameter variants sequentially, verifying report-change evidence, restoring starting chart/inputs, and exporting results. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as strategy_sweep or strategy_set_inputs.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'explicit parameter variants' implies a use case, but it does not name strategy_sweep or explain when a scan should be chosen over a sweep, manual input changes, or export tools.

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