read_optimization_csv

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

The description states the tool reads a CSV file, implying a read-only operation. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose potential failures (e.g., file not found), file location constraints, or side effects. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but minimal.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with a clear one-sentence summary of the tool's purpose, then lists parameters in a conventional Args format. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. The length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 that there is no output schema and schema description coverage is 0%, the description covers the input parameters well. It explains the source file, sorting, and row limit. Missing details include the structure of the returned data (e.g., which fields are present) and error handling. However, for a straightforward read operation, this is mostly complete.

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?

The description thoroughly explains each parameter: run_id is required and specifies the run ID; top_n controls the number of passed; criterion defines the sort column; descending sets sort order. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only provides types and defaults. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates.

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 clearly states the tool reads optimization results from a specific CSV file generated by OptExport.mqh in Common Files folder. It uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('optimization_results from CSV file'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like parse_optimization or top_passes, which may have overlapping functionality.

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 (e.g., parse_optimization, top_passes). No prerequisites, typical use cases, or when-not-to-use information is included. The agent must infer the tool's role from the name alone.

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