create_black_litterman_views

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only calls the tool an 'interactive guide' without detailing what the user receives, whether any data is modified, or if there are side effects. It doesn't mention output format, interactivity specifics, or any prerequisites, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, concise sentence that covers the core purpose and highlights examples/best practices. Every word contributes meaningful information without redundancy, and it is appropriately sized for a simple guide tool.

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 tool has four optional params with full schema descriptions but no output schema or annotations, the description is adequate for a guide tool but incomplete. It does not mention what the returned output looks like, how interactive the guide is, or how it differs from optimization tools, leaving clear gaps for the user.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about the parameters—it only mentions 'examples and best practices' generally, which aligns with 'view_examples' but adds nothing beyond what the schema already states. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 it is an 'Interactive guide for creating Black-Litterman investment views with examples and best practices,' which clearly identifies the resource (Black-Litterman views) and the general purpose (a guide for creation). However, it's ambiguous whether the tool itself creates views or simply teaches the user, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'optimize_black_litterman' tool.

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 when the user wants to create Black-Litterman views, as it offers 'examples and best practices.' However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'optimize_black_litterman' or when not to use it, providing only implied context.

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