briefing_stock_alert_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields ('状态、触发次数、剩余时间') and implies read-only behavior via '查看', but it does not explicitly state that it is safe/non-destructive, nor does it explain authentication defaults or whether the token parameter is required. The description adds value but lacks complete transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes practical example phrases. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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?

For a simple list tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key invocation scenarios and the return contents. It lacks explicit mention of default token handling or result ordering, but these are minor gaps given the simplicity and the schema's coverage. Overall, it is adequately complete.

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%, with each parameter (token, status, ticker) having a clear description. The tool description adds little beyond the schema—it mentions filtering by ticker and status only through examples, which the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: '查看预警列表' (view alert list), with a specific verb and resource. It also provides example user utterances ('我设了哪些预警', 'AAPL 的预警') that map to real invocation scenarios, and the sibling tools (set/update/dismiss/trigger) are distinct actions, making this list tool 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?

The description gives concrete usage context with example user phrasings, indicating when to call this tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tool names and the clear list-focused purpose provide sufficient guidance for an agent to select it appropriately.

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