get_watchlist

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

The description explicitly declares the tool is read-only, which is a key behavioral trait. It also describes the output structure, but does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., empty watchlist) or limitations (e.g., rate limits). Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden and does so reasonably well.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences to convey purpose and return format. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and an output schema described in text, the description is largely complete. However, it lacks explanation of what 'one per open chart window' entails in practice (e.g., if multiple windows with same symbol appear) and does not mention the possibility of an empty result. Minor gaps exist.

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, so the input schema provides full coverage. The baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not add parameter info as it is unnecessary, but it does describe the return value, which indirectly aids understanding.

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 reads symbols from TradingView exposed per open chart window. The verb 'Read' is specific, and the resource 'symbols TradingView currently exposes' is well-defined. It distinguishes from siblings like get_symbol (specific symbol retrieval) and read_alerts (alert management).

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 implies usage for retrieving the current watchlist of symbols, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_symbol for a single symbol). No exclusions or conditions are provided, leaving some ambiguity about context.

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