aetre_heldout_backtest

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions 'runs a backtest' and 'evaluating', but does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires specific datasets or permissions, what side effects (if any) exist, or what the output structure is. For a computation tool this is a notable gap.

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?

One sentence, efficiently packs the action and evaluation scope. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though the long list of metrics makes it slightly dense. Still, it is appropriately concise with no filler.

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 complex (8 policies, multiple metrics, statistical intervals) but the description provides no details on how to interpret results, what 'true decision flips' means, or what the output looks like. With no output schema and no annotations, this is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly without further context.

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%, with each parameter described in the input schema. The description itself adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema—it doesn't clarify parameter relationships or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents parameters.

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 ('Runs') and a clear resource ('multi-policy held-out review allocation backtest'), and names the key evaluation targets (decision flips, precision, recall, bootstrap intervals). It is not a tautology and conveys a concrete action, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools with similar backtesting purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over siblings like aetre_batch_triage or aetre_simulate_benchmark. The description implies a backtest use case but does not state context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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