ps_symbol_list

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. 'List symbols' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't address authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond schema parameters), error handling, or what the output looks like. It mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't explain how filters combine or their precedence.

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—just 5 words—with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List symbols') and efficiently notes the key capability ('with optional filtering'). Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'symbols' represent in this system, how results are structured, or behavioral aspects like pagination defaults. The agent must rely heavily on the schema alone, missing important contextual understanding for effective use.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond stating 'optional filtering'—it doesn't explain what 'symbols' are, how filtering works in practice, or provide examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added over the comprehensive schema.

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 'List symbols with optional filtering' clearly states the verb ('list') and resource ('symbols'), but it's vague about what 'symbols' are in this context and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'ps_symbol_list_unverified' or 'ps_symbol_get'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about the domain or scope.

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. With sibling tools like 'ps_symbol_list_unverified' and 'ps_symbol_get' available, there's no indication of when this filtered listing is preferred over those options, nor any mention of prerequisites or typical use cases.

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