ads_list_symbols

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that compact mode returns a token-reduced format (one fifth of the tokens), which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, refresh parameter behavior and pagination are not described.

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?

Dense but well-structured, front-loading the purpose then covering parameters with concrete examples. Every sentence adds value. Slightly terse but not wasteful.

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?

With 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the key parameters well but omits limit, offset, and refresh semantics. An agent might not know default pagination behavior or what refresh does. Adequate but incomplete for a 7-param 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains pattern (fnmatch with examples and bare-text wrapping), type_filter (substring match with examples), flag (accepted values), and compact (format and token savings). This meaningfully clarifies the most important parameters, though limit, offset, and refresh are left undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Browse the runtime symbol table.' Clear what it does. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like ads_symbol_info or ads_discover, but the tool name and description are distinct enough.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. An agent must infer that this is for enumerating symbols vs ads_symbol_info which likely gets details for one symbol. No exclusions or routing.

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