read_tester_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool locates and parses the report and returns raw HTML (implied by the 'raw_truncate' parameter and later mention of 'raw HTML returned'). However, it lacks details on error behavior (e.g., if no report is found), return format beyond raw HTML, or any side effects. This is adequate but incomplete.

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 very concise with two short paragraphs: one for overall purpose and one for argument descriptions. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should hint at return values. The 'raw_truncate' parameter implies raw HTML is returned, but the term 'parse' suggests structured output, creating ambiguity. No explicit mention of output structure or error handling leaves the agent needing to infer. For a simple tool, this is minimally sufficient but not 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'path' can be an explicit path or omitted to find the latest file in Tester/, and 'raw_truncate' limits raw HTML characters. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default values, effectively covering both parameters.

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 'Locate and parse latest MT5 tester HTML report', which includes a specific verb (locate and parse) and resource (MT5 tester HTML report). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_optimization_csv' or 'compare_reports', so a high score but not a 5.

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 other sibling tools (e.g., read_optimization_csv for CSV reports). The description only explains what the tool does without any context about appropriate usage scenarios or when to choose an alternative.

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