관심종목 그룹 목록

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

The description declares the tool is read-only (읽기 전용) and mentions the API endpoint ka01300, which adds transparency. It states that group editing is not supported, which is a behavioral limitation. No annotations were provided, so the description carries the burden. It does not discuss error conditions or rate limits, but for a simple parameterless read operation, this is adequate.

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 main purpose. It includes an alternative tool reference and a limitation. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality. It mentions the output fields (group code + group name) and the API code. It could mention more about the output format or potential empty results, but it is sufficiently complete for a simple list retrieval tool.

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 has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by stating what is retrieved (group code + group name). No parameters need explanation, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 retrieves a list of watchlist groups (group code + group name) stored in the HTS. It uses the verb '조회합니다' (inquiry) and specifies the resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_watchlist by noting that get_watchlist is for specific group items.

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 explicitly says to use get_watchlist for specific group items, and states that group editing (add/delete) is not supported by the API, so only inquiry is possible. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, with an alternative named.

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