read_backtest_orders

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond this, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if parameters are invalid. Since annotations cover the safety aspect, the bar is lower, but the description could have added useful context like pagination behavior (implied by start/end parameters) or data format. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, it's arguably too concise, as it omits necessary details about parameters and usage, which reduces its overall helpfulness despite the efficient structure.

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 doesn't need to cover safety or return values. However, it's a read operation with 4 nested parameters (start, end, projectId, backtestId) that are undocumented in the description, and it lacks usage context among siblings. This makes it minimally adequate but incomplete for effective tool selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% (parameters are nested under 'model' without descriptions in the top-level schema), so the description must compensate. However, it mentions no parameters at all, failing to explain what 'model' contains or the meaning of start, end, projectId, and backtestId. This leaves critical input semantics undocumented, making it harder for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 out the orders of a backtest' clearly states the verb ('read out') and resource ('orders of a backtest'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'read_backtest', 'read_backtest_chart', or 'read_backtest_insights', which all involve reading backtest data but different aspects. The description is vague about what 'orders' specifically refer to in this context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a backtest ID), compare it to similar tools like 'read_live_orders' or 'read_backtest', or specify use cases. Without this context, an agent might struggle to select this tool appropriately among the many read-related siblings.

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