smoke_test

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It lists steps and the success condition, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., file cleanup), failure behavior beyond returning false, and required environment state (e.g., terminal selection). This is insufficient for a composite operation.

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 two sentences long and efficiently conveys the core purpose and success condition. It is front-loaded but could be slightly more structured. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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's complexity (6 parameters, multi-step operation, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It omits prerequisites (e.g., terminal state), error handling details, cleanup behavior, and parameter constraints. The agent would need external knowledge to use it reliably.

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%. The tool description only mentions a '1-day' backtest, which hints at the days parameter, but does not explain the other five parameters (source, symbol, expert_name, period, timeout_sec). The agent cannot infer correct parameter values from the description.

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 performs compilation, deployment, running a backtest, and journal scanning. It explicitly defines the verb ('smoke test') and the resource (the combined steps). This differentiates it from sibling tools like compile, run_backtest, and deploy_ea which handle individual steps.

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 implies the tool is for quick validation, but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives or when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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