list_sectors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns about 79 sectors sorted by daily change rate, which is key behavioral information. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only or has no side effects, but that is implied.

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 concise with three sentences, each providing value (title, usage, behavior). However, the structure could be cleaner, e.g., separating a formal title from the description text.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema (assumed present), the description provides sufficient context: what it returns, approximate count, sorting, and example queries. An agent can confidently decide when to use it.

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, and the schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details.

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 that the tool fetches a list of sectors (업종) from Naver Securities, sorted by daily change rate. It also provides example queries ('업종별 현황', '섹터 리스트', '업종 등락률') that distinguish it from sibling tools like get_sector_stocks or list_themes.

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 explicit use cases in the form of query examples, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives. However, the examples strongly imply when it is appropriate.

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