get_strategy_help

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only implies a read operation ('get detailed help') but omits details such as idempotency, side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This minimal transparency burdens the agent.

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 a single sentence of six words, perfectly concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource. No wasted text.

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 simple single-parameter schema and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on what 'help' entails (e.g., text explanation, structure), which might be clarified by the output schema but is not evident here.

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 100%, and the schema's description of 'strategy_type' is adequate ('Name of the strategy...'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but provides no additional semantic enrichment.

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 'Get detailed help for a specific strategy' clearly specifies the action (get) and the resource (help for a strategy). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_strategies (which lists strategies) and get_strategy_performance (which retrieves performance data), making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or reference sibling tools like list_strategies or get_strategy_performance, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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