ib_portfolio_action_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the process (fetches, groups, categorizes, returns) and the local gateway requirement, but does not explain error handling, side effects, or detailed behavior beyond the high-level steps.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. It then adds process details, a prerequisite, and parameter guidance, with no wasted words. The structure is clean and easy to parse.

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 tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview but lacks specific details about the output format or content beyond 'structured analysis with recommendations.' This may be sufficient for basic understanding but leaves gaps for an agent needing to invoke or interpret results.

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's parameter explanations are critical. It adds valuable meaning by specifying port values (7496 live, 7497 paper) and clarifying account as optional. This goes well beyond the raw schema.

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 function with a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('portfolio positions'), and further details the pipeline (fetches, groups, categorizes) and output (structured analysis with recommendations). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ib_portfolio or risk_assessment.

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 mentions a clear prerequisite ('Requires TWS or IB Gateway running locally') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly contrasted with siblings.

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