stocks_list_sector

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implicitly indicates a read-only operation ('Get') and specifies the output as unique sector values, which is transparent enough for a no-parameter listing tool. However, it does not disclose potential details such as whether results are sorted, include empty sectors, or how many values are returned—though these are minor for such a simple 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no superfluous words and is appropriately terse for a tool that takes no input. Every word 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 that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly identifies what the tool returns (unique sector values for stocks) and differentiates it from similar listing tools. There is no need to describe return formats since no output schema exists, and the tool's simplicity makes the one-line description adequate. A slight improvement could be mentioning that it returns a list of distinct sector names, but that is implicit.

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 baseline score is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema is fully covered with an empty object. No additional semantic guidance is required.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('unique sector values for stocks'), making its purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stocks_list_industry or etf_list_sector by explicitly specifying 'sector values' for stocks, which is a distinct concept from other listing dimensions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like stocks_list_market or stocks_list_country. An agent is left to infer that this is the right tool if sector values are needed, but no explicit routing guidance is offered.

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