tv_read_strategy_tester

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that the tool returns visible:false if the panel is not open. This provides the agent with a key behavioral detail that annotations do not capture. There is no contradiction with 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 extremely concise: one sentence that front-loads the main action and includes a critical conditional detail. Every word earns its place. There is no unnecessary information.

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 no output schema, no parameters, and annotations are minimal. The description tells the agent the core behavior but does not describe the structure of the strategy tester summary (e.g., what fields or data it returns). While it covers the visible flag, an agent might need more detail about the return content to use the tool effectively. Given the simplicity, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). Per guidelines, baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it is consistent. No additional parameter information is required.

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 action ('Read the Strategy Tester summary') and the resource. It also includes a condition ('if visible') and the return value when not visible, which distinguishes it from other read tools. The verb 'Read' and resource 'Strategy Tester summary' are specific and unambiguous.

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 says what the tool does and under what condition it returns visible:false. While it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, the usage is clear: use this when you need the strategy tester summary if the panel is open. The context signals show many sibling tools, but this one's purpose is self-contained.

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