get_concept_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds the specific return fields (name, code, change%, leader stock), but does not disclose additional behaviors such as ordering, pagination, or data freshness. Since annotations cover the safety profile, this is acceptable.

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?

Single sentence that directly states purpose and return fields. No filler or redundancy.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what data is returned and the scope (all concept sectors). It could be more exhaustive about exact fields (uses '等'), but it is adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 description cannot add parameter meaning. Per rubric, baseline 4 applies, and the description's mention of return fields is the only relevant context.

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 retrieves all concept sector names and returns key fields (name, code, change%, leader stock). It uses a specific verb+resource and the '所有' (all) scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_concept_spot or get_concept_constituents which focus on specific concepts.

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 obtaining the full list of concept sectors, but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_concept_spot or get_concept_constituents. No exclusions or alternative names are mentioned.

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