Get Strategy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two invocation modes and their outputs (list vs. concern map), notes that strategies are model-agnostic, and even mentions parallel execution. It does not explicitly state the read-only nature, but 'Get' and 'predefined' strongly imply no side effects.

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 longer than average but well-structured: front-loaded purpose, a necessary list of strategies (since no enum exists), and a clearly labeled USAGE section. Every sentence delivers useful information, though a slightly tighter presentation would be possible.

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?

Given one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains both call modes, what the result contains (list or concern map), how to interpret concerns, and how to proceed with sibling tools, providing sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 already provides a description for strategyId, but the tool description adds the complete list of valid strategy IDs and clarifies the behavior when omitted (list all). This goes far beyond the schema baseline, giving the agent all acceptable values directly.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a predefined analysis strategy.' It clearly defines what strategies are and distinguishes the tool from siblings by positioning it as the entry point for retrieving strategy definitions rather than executing analysis steps.

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 explicitly explains when to call with vs. without strategyId, and provides a detailed usage workflow referencing sibling tools (expand_selection, apply_lens) as subsequent steps. It also clarifies that strategies apply to any system and explains the meaning of 'required' vs. 'conditional' concerns.

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