添加自选股票

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the description is not required to repeat them. It adds a useful behavioral note about requiring a valid login state ('需要有效登录态'), which gives extra context beyond the 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 two concise sentences with no redundant information. It efficiently communicates the action, the target, the requirement, and the input format without any fluff.

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 simplicity (one parameter and a clear action), the description covers the essential context: what it adds, to which watchlist, and the auth requirement. It does not specify the response format, but since no output schema is provided in the given data, this is not a major gap. Could be slightly more explicit about potential duplicate handling, but that is covered by idempotentHint in annotations.

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 single parameter 'symbol' is fully described in the schema with type, length constraints, and a description that includes concrete examples (SH600519, SZ000001, 00700, AAPL). The description adds clarity about accepted formats, making the parameter semantics excellent.

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: adding a stock to the current user's default watchlist. It also specifies the resource (stocks) and distinguishes it from funds and cubes via sibling tool names, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explains what it does but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_watchlist_fund or add_watchlist_cube. The mention of 'default group' hints at a limitation but does not explicitly contrast with other watchlist-related tools.

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