Evolution Evolve Strategy

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

Annotations already establish the write/non-idempotent/non-destructive profile, and the description adds real behavioral substance: LLM-driven candidate generation, in-sample backtesting, out-of-sample validation of survivors, and elimination of weak hypotheses, plus what the result contains (graduated strategies and graveyard). It does not disclose that results are persisted (consistent with readOnlyHint=false), nor runtime/cost expectations for an LLM-plus-backtest loop.

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 pipeline summary is front-loaded in the first line and the second sentence elaborates with distinct detail rather than restating. There is mild redundancy between 'generate, backtest, select, eliminate' and the subsequent sentence, but overall it is tight and worth its length.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no elaboration, and the description still characterizes the return as graduated strategies plus a graveyard. The multi-stage process an agent must anticipate for a five-parameter orchestration tool is adequately conveyed, with only cost/latency and side effects left implicit.

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 100%, so symbol, days, timeframe, generations, and population_size are already fully documented in the schema with defaults and enum-like values. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, leaving this at the baseline for a well-covered schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Run full evolution loop') and enumerates the four internal stages (generate, backtest, select, eliminate), which distinguishes it from nitty-gritty siblings like evolution_run_backtest or evolution_discover_patterns. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 phrase 'Run full evolution loop' implies this is the end-to-end orchestrator rather than a single step, which is useful context against the granular evolution_* siblings. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over chaining evolution_discover_patterns + evolution_run_backtest, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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