run_backtest_matrix

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so excellently. It discloses the 24-job cap, soft runtime budget, temporary strategy add/remove lifecycle, full-ledger SHA-256 id binding, chart-state restoration, handling of failures/insufficient samples, non-ranking of results, confirm-gated execution, and that it never places orders.

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?

Four sentences, each dense with critical operational information. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the safety-related behavior ('never places orders', 'confirm=true') is positioned where it matters. No filler or repetition.

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 complex matrix execution tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers execution planning, confirmation semantics, safety (no orders), state restoration, job bounds, runtime limits, and result-row behavior. An agent has enough to decide whether and how to invoke it 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 coverage is already high at 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful meaning on top by explaining job lifecycle semantics, the confirm execution-plan gate, the soft runtime budget, and the meaning of insufficient samples relative to minimum_trades. This goes beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Run') and a precise resource ('a bounded, serial matrix of saved Pine strategies across explicit symbol, timeframe, and input combinations'). This clearly distinguishes it from single-run tools like run_backtest, and the matrix framing is unique among sibling tools.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: when running multiple saved Pine strategy jobs across explicit combinations. It also explains the confirm=true gate and the non-order-placing behavior, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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