read_backtest_chart

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds minimal context beyond this, specifying it reads a 'chart' but not detailing behavioral traits like data format, permissions, or rate limits. It doesn't contradict annotations, as 'read' aligns with readOnlyHint.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, though it could benefit from more detail. Every word earns its place by stating the core action.

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 the tool has annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is minimally complete but lacks depth. It doesn't explain the chart's nature, return format, or error conditions, leaving gaps despite structured data support. For a tool with 1 parameter (though nested with 6 sub-parameters), more context is needed.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds no parameter information beyond implying a chart is read from a backtest. It doesn't explain what parameters like 'model', 'projectId', or 'name' mean, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 'Read a chart from a backtest' clearly states the action (read) and resource (chart from a backtest), but it's vague about what 'chart' entails (e.g., visual data, metrics) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'read_backtest' or 'read_backtest_insights'. It avoids tautology by not just restating the name.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a backtest ID), exclusions, or compare to sibling tools like 'read_backtest' for general data or 'read_live_chart' for live algorithms. Usage is implied only by the name and description.

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