watchlist_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It states two key behavioral traits: membership is always complete (via symbols_list API) even when the panel is scrolled or closed, and quote cells are best effort and only present when the panel is open, directing the agent to check quotes_available. This is substantial transparency, though it doesn't cover error conditions or the exact return structure.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The primary purpose and the key guarantee (complete list) are front-loaded, and the second sentence addresses a critical limitation (quote availability) compactly. Every clause earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (every symbol in the active watchlist) and discloses the caveat about quote cells and the quotes_available field. It implies the response includes symbols and possibly quotes, but it doesn't explicitly state the return format (e.g., a list of strings), so it's slightly under-specified. Still, it covers the essential context for correct invocation.

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 takes zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description correctly avoids adding unnecessary parameter detail. Baseline 4 is appropriate as there is nothing to explain.

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 'Get every symbol in the active TradingView watchlist,' a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from watchlist mutation tools (watchlist_add, watchlist_remove) and other retrieval tools. It also notes the membership source (symbols_list API) and active watchlist context, making the purpose 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 implicit guidance by stating the complete membership regardless of panel state (a unique advantage) and warns that quote cells are best effort and only present when the panel is open, suggesting that quote retrieval may require other tools like quote_get. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use this when you need the full symbol list,' so it stops short of explicit when-to-use vs. siblings.

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