list_sectors

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

The verb 'List' implies a read-only retrieval with no side effects, but the description does not disclose data source, freshness, or response behavior. With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden and provides only minimal behavioral 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 a single concise sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded. It contains no filler and conveys the essential scope and output mapping efficiently.

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 low-complexity, parameterless tool, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns: sector names, the benchmark, and the SPDR ETF mapping. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about response format would improve completeness, but the description is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 input schema fully covers the input side. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none is needed; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('GICS sector catalog'), then details the exact contents: 11 sectors plus the S&P 500 benchmark, mapped to SPDR sector ETFs. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_sector_members or get_sector_performance.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_sector_members, get_sector_performance, or sync_sectors. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction.

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