tv_watchlist_read

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Read' is consistent. The description adds the condition 'if visible', but does not explain the behavior when the panel is not visible (e.g., returns empty, error, or requires action). No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. 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 parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description is mostly complete. It could benefit from stating the return format or behavior when the panel is not visible, but given the simplicity, it covers the essential purpose.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% description coverage, so the schema fully defines all parameters. The description adds no parameter info, but that is acceptable given no parameters exist. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 ('Read') and resource ('the symbols in the active watchlist panel'). The condition 'if visible' adds a qualifier that could cause uncertainty but still conveys the core function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tv_watchlist_add_symbol.

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 when the watchlist panel is visible, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tv_watchlist_sync) or what to do if the panel is not visible. No exclusions or recommendations are given.

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