strategy_sweep

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description usefully adds that execution is sequential, fresh by default, has no cross-run cache, and includes state restoration, but it does not explain what specifically gets mutated, how the layout guard stops writes, or what failure behavior looks like.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is dense but efficient; the only mild weakness is that several important details are packed into vague phrases like 'full result evidence.'

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?

This is a complex 10-parameter mutation tool with nested inputs, an open-world annotation, and no output schema. The one-sentence description is not complete enough: it omits required target and layout safeguards, error-handling behavior, timeout semantics, and what 'result evidence' actually contains.

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 20% across 10 parameters. The description clarifies the symbols/timeframes/inputs grid and hints at bounding and restoration, but it does not explain key parameters such as entity_id, on_error, timeout_per_variant_ms, or max_combinations, leaving most parameters undocumented beyond the schema.

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 verb and scope: 'Run a bounded symbol × timeframe × input grid sequentially.' It is clear this is a grid-sweep execution tool. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as strategy_scan or strategy_compare_metrics, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the name and schema.

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 choose this tool versus strategy_scan, strategy_capture, or strategy_compare_metrics. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'symbol × timeframe × input grid,' and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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