run_strategy_regime_matrix

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it exceptionally well. It discloses that strategies are temporarily added and removed, chart restoration is verified, the operation reads closed OHLC, dry-run is the default, confirm=true is required, and saved Pine source is never changed nor orders placed.

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 four focused sentences with no filler: purpose, process, output, and safety constraints each occupy a distinct and necessary sentence. Key operational facts such as 'Dry-run by default; confirm=true is required' are front-loaded and impossible to miss.

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?

Given the high complexity, absent output schema, and no annotations, the description is unusually complete: it covers behavior, side effects, safety guarantees, and the high-level return content. It does not detail return structure or error conditions, but for agent selection and invocation the provided context is sufficient.

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 35%, so the description must compensate, but it only indirectly clarifies a few parameters such as confirm, jobs, symbols, and timeframes. The many regime thresholds, lookback windows, session configurations, and ratio parameters remain unexplained by the description, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names and schema constraints alone.

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'), a concrete resource ('a bounded serial matrix of exact saved Pine Strategies'), and a clear scope ('across explicit symbols and timeframes'). It also distinguishes itself by noting the output is descriptive and 'without ranking or automatic adoption', which separates it from related analysis 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 provides strong contextual guidance: it is a dry-run by default, confirm=true is required, and ranking/adoption are intentionally excluded. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state precise conditions for choosing this tool over them, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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