get_thesis

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds value by listing the specific fields returned (hypothesis, key_levels, etc.), which is not present in annotations or schema.

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 Chinese sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the relevant return fields. Every part is necessary, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 that the tool is a simple retrieval with good annotations and schema, the description adequately covers what it does and what data it returns. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and does not specify behavior when a thesis is not found, though these are minor gaps.

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 100% description coverage for both parameters (stockId and market), so the schema already documents them. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics or usage examples beyond what the schema provides.

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 explicitly states '查詢單檔股票的投資論點' (query investment thesis for a single stock), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_theses (multiple theses), delete_thesis, and upsert_thesis by targeting a single entity.

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 does not mention when to avoid it, nor does it reference sibling tools like list_theses for listing all theses or upsert_thesis for creating/updating. The agent must infer usage from context.

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