list_strategies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral context like sorting options, fields returned, and pagination (offset/limit). No contradictions. It discloses what the tool does without hiding any important traits.

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 well-structured: starts with purpose, then example queries, sorting explanation, response fields, and sibling reference. Each sentence adds value; no fluff. Could be slightly more concise but overall efficient.

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 6 optional parameters and an output schema (so return value docs are not needed), the description covers the main points: purpose, usage hints, sorting, and key fields. It lacks explicit guidance on pagination and filtering parameters but these are standard and the schema provides defaults and constraints. Adequate for an agent to use 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 compensate. It explains the `sort` enum values and the fields in the response, but does not explain `family`, `status`, `visibility`, `limit`, or `offset` beyond their defaults and constraints. Partial compensation.

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 lists published trading strategies and returns a catalog with best run metrics. It uses specific verbs ('list', 'returns') and resource ('Rozkoduj's trading strategies'). It distinguishes itself from sibling `strategy_details` by noting that tool is for deep details on a single strategy.

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?

Provides explicit usage scenarios: 'when asked what strategies do you have?, show me the leaderboard, which strategy ranks highest?'. Also points to sibling tool `strategy_details` for deeper details, helping the agent decide which tool to use.

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