list_all_strategies

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

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses that the tool returns detailed information about strategies including name, description, parameters, defaults, and examples. It is transparent about the read-only nature and return content, though it does not mention potential performance implications for large lists.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses bullet points for clarity. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no required parameters and an output schema that likely details the return structure, the description is largely complete. It could improve by noting that the tool is safe and idempotent, but it sufficiently covers the tool's functionality.

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?

The tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by nature. The description adds value by explaining what the output contains (parameter info, defaults, etc.), which is relevant beyond the empty input schema. Per guidelines, 0-parameter tools baseline at 4.

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 lists all available backtesting strategies with their parameters, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_strategy_help' by focusing on listing all strategies rather than providing help on a specific one.

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 implies usage for listing strategies but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_strategy_help' or 'compare_strategies'. It lacks 'when to use' and 'when not to use' instructions.

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