strategy_walk_forward

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'select' and 'report' without clarifying side effects, read-only nature, or prerequisites. The description does not disclose whether this tool modifies any state or merely analyzes data, leaving behavior ambiguous.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and key details. Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 appears moderately complex (walk-forward optimization), but the description provides no context about the process, expected input data, or prerequisites. Although an output schema exists, the description does not explain key terms like 'training history' or 'out-of-sample results,' making it incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 input schema has only a 'symbol' parameter with zero description coverage. The tool description mentions 'SMA parameters' as objects of selection but does not explicitly explain how 'symbol' is used or required. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, so the parameter semantics remain underspecified.

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 an actionable purpose: select SMA parameters on training history and report out-of-sample results. This is a specific verb+resource (SMA parameters, training history, out-of-sample) that distinguishes the tool from siblings like portfolio_backtest.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool—for walk-forward SMA parameter selection—but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It does not differentiate from sibling tools such as portfolio_backtest, leaving usage context partially implied.

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