tearsheet

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

With no annotations, the description does substantial work: it discloses that the tool writes one self-contained HTML file, gives the default output location, and says it returns the path and headline numbers. It does not mention overwrite behavior if report_html already exists or other file-writing 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 main purpose is front-loaded and the parameter details are dense but relevant. The single paragraph is longer than ideal for scanning, but every sentence contributes useful semantics rather than 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?

For a six-parameter file-generating tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical data inputs and return artifact well. It is slightly incomplete on title/report_html parameter semantics and overwrite behavior, but overall it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 description must carry parameter meaning. It richly defines bars_csv columns and timing, funding_csv sign convention, fee/slippage units, and the default report path. It leaves title and the explicit meaning of report_html mostly implicit.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: writing an HTML tearsheet for a strategy and returning its path plus headline numbers. It is clearly distinct from the sibling replay/status tools, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose, and there is one useful routing hint: measure slippage with replay_orders rather than guessing. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus pro_replay or other siblings, nor any exclusions.

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