get_stock_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't describe whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether there are rate limits, pagination behavior, or what format the returned list takes. The description only states what the tool does, not how it behaves.

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 - a single Chinese sentence that directly states the tool's function. There's zero wasted language, no redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the returned stock list contains (just symbols? full details?), how results are formatted, whether there are limitations on sector values, or error conditions. Given the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage. The schema fully documents the single 'sector' parameter with description, type, and default value. The description doesn't provide additional context about sector options, validation rules, or examples beyond the schema's '例如 沪深A股' example.

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 as '获取指定板块的股票列表' (get stock list for specified sector), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_history_market_data or get_latest_market_data by focusing on sector-based listing rather than time-based or detailed market data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_full_market_data, which might also return lists.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or compare with sibling tools like get_full_market_data (which might return broader market data) or get_instrument_detail (which provides detailed information on individual instruments). The user must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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