generate_stress_tests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs simulations under extreme conditions, requires option Greeks for options (get from get_options_chain first), and returns P&L under various scenarios. It also notes that plain text works for stock-only portfolios. This is useful behavioral context, though it doesn't explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, and no permissions or rate limits are mentioned.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each section (usage intents, args, returns) is concise and relevant, with no redundant filler. The example is long but necessary for clarity.

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?

For a single-parameter tool, the description is quite complete: it covers input requirements, prerequisites, and output. However, it could spend a bit more detail on the specific stress scenarios generated or the format of the returned P&L, but this is not a major gap.

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%, but the description fully compensates by providing a detailed explanation of the 'positions' parameter with a JSON example, a note on obtaining Greeks, and a fallback for plain text input. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema property.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Run stress test scenarios') and target resource ('a portfolio'). It explicitly mentions extreme market conditions like crashes, vol spikes, and rallies, and lists user intents (stress testing, crash scenarios, worst-case analysis) that distinguish it from sibling tools like run_scenario_analysis.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this tool when the user asks about: Stress testing, Crash scenarios, Worst-case analysis.' However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, so it doesn't fully meet the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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