run_strategy_regime_analysis

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the entire burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this exceptionally well: temporary strategy addition, immutable ledger, dry-run by default, mandatory confirm, strategy removal, chart fingerprint verification, and explicit no-op guarantees (no ranking, no source changes, no 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?

The description is dense yet compact. Each sentence delivers distinct value: the action and ledger, the returned metrics, the dry-run/confirm requirement, the cleanup/fingerprint verification, and the negative guarantees. No wasted words.

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?

With 23 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a strong high-level overview and return metrics, but leaves many configuration semantics unexplored. The schema covers some parameters, but the overall context is not fully sufficient for reliably invoking such a complex tool with correct optional parameters.

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 only 43%, so the description should compensate, but it only clarifies the confirm parameter ('confirm=true is required') and the generic regime-join concept. Most parameters (atr_lookback, trend_lookback, event_proximity, correlation_regime, thresholds, lookbacks) are not explained in the description and some lack schema 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 action ('Run one exact saved Pine Strategy temporarily'), the resource, and the analysis pipeline (join trades to regime bars). It also distinguishes itself by explicitly saying it 'never ranks regimes', which separates it from siblings like run_strategy_regime_matrix.

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?

It clearly states when to use: for analyzing one saved strategy's trades against regimes. It provides key preconditions like 'Dry-run by default; confirm=true is required' and exclusions ('never ranks regimes... or places orders'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for different use cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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