watchlist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the watchlist is shared across DartLens and TelegramLens, which is a meaningful behavioral trait, and implies mutation via add/remove/clear. However, it does not explicitly describe side effects (e.g., persistence, immediate visibility, or whether operations are destructive), and lacks details on auth or rate limits. The description adds some value but is not exhaustive for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, usage context, and an Args section. It includes Korean examples that add value but also length. It is not overly verbose and front-loads the purpose and usage guidance, making it easy to scan.

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 the output schema exists (though not shown), the description need not explain return values. It covers the tool's actions, shared behavior, and integration with other tools, which is sufficient for a watchlist manager. It lacks some explicit details about what happens on add when the item already exists, but overall it is complete for its complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: action with allowed values (list/add/remove/clear) and query with example types (stock name or 6-digit code) and its use for add/remove. This is exactly what the agent needs to set parameters correctly.

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 manages a watchlist ('관심종목') with actions list/add/remove/clear, and specifies it is shared across multiple lenses. It is specific and distinguishes itself from data retrieval tools by focusing on watchlist management, and even references related batch tools for consumption of its output.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: requests like '내 종목' or '관심종목' and mentions that the list is shared with other lenses. It also instructs to pass the returned codes directly to batch tools (get_multi_stocks, get_flow_batch, get_indicators_bulk) and warns against querying stocks individually. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools for similar actions, though the context is solid.

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