briefing_stock_alert_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by stating the 10-alert limit per stock, the generic-alert behavior when ticker is omitted, and the requirement to confirm with the user before creation. It does not detail potential side effects like overwriting existing alerts, but the primary creation behavior is transparent.

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 moderately sized but well-organized: the first paragraph states purpose and key constraints, the second describes the workflow, and the third gives presentation guidelines. Each sentence serves a purpose, though it could be slightly more compact.

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 creation tool with no output schema and nested alert objects, the description provides sufficient context: when to call, how to handle analyst reports, constraints, and even phrasing guidance for user communication. It omits return-value details, which are not critical for a create operation.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for all four parameters. The description adds the key decision rule that omitting ticker creates a generic alert and that scope is only used in that case, plus the 10-alert limit. This enhances the schema's parameter descriptions without being redundant.

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 opens with '批量创建预警' (batch create alerts), clearly stating the verb and resource. It further distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting it supports batch creation, manual creation, and generic alerts without a ticker, setting it apart from list/update/dismiss/trigger 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?

It provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: after an analyst report is pasted, the agent extracts concerns and calls this tool; or manual creation. It also instructs to present extracted concerns to the user for confirmation before calling. While alternatives are not explicitly named, the workflow and constraints (max 10 alerts, generic alert when no ticker) provide clear usage context.

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