ps_symbol_list_unverified

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 describes the tool's function (listing symbols for review) and criteria for inclusion (e.g., 'High-stakes claims'), which adds useful context beyond basic parameters. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the 'limit' and 'offset' parameters in the schema), error handling, or authentication requirements. For a tool with no annotations, this is adequate but leaves gaps in operational transparency.

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 and concise, with zero wasted sentences. It front-loads the purpose ('List symbols that require human review'), provides specific criteria in a bullet-like list, and ends with clear usage guidance. Each sentence earns its place by adding essential context or instructions, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage context, and review criteria, which compensates for the lack of output schema by clarifying what the tool returns (symbols flagged for review). However, it could be more complete by addressing potential behavioral aspects like pagination details or error scenarios, but it covers the core functionality adequately for an agent to use it 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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema (e.g., 'claim_type' with enum values, 'min_confidence' with range). The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact with the review criteria. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description adds no extra parameter semantics.

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's purpose: 'List symbols that require human review.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('symbols'), and scope ('that require human review'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'ps_symbol_list' (which likely lists all symbols without filtering for review status). The description also enumerates specific criteria for review (e.g., 'Accusatory claims without sufficient evidence'), making it highly specific and actionable.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to find claims that need human validation before action.' It provides clear context for usage (finding items requiring review) and implies an alternative by distinguishing it from tools that might list all symbols (e.g., 'ps_symbol_list'). The guidance is direct and practical, helping the agent understand its role in a workflow involving human validation.

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