pt_comp_list_sectors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the list is filtered to sectors with enforcement activity and includes counts, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects, authentication requirements, or limitations. The description adds some behavioral context but is not exhaustive.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the primary action and the essential output components (sectors, decision counts, merger counts). Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose and the expected result. It could potentially mention pagination or sorting, but these are not critical for a sector list. The addition of 'with AdC enforcement activity' clarifies the filter, making it complete enough for typical use.

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 zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are none, which is appropriate and does not need to compensate.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'sectors', and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on sector-level aggregation with decision and merger counts. It is not a tautology and immediately conveys what the tool does.

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 sector-level overview, as it lists sectors with activity and counts. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the search/get sibling tools, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions.

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