获取自选股列表

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds useful non-obvious context: it supports viewing other users' lists via user_id, returns code/name, and expects a pid obtained from get_user_watchlists. It does not discuss pagination or rate limits, but these are not critical for this simple read endpoint.

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?

Two sentences; the main operation and return values are front-loaded, followed by the optional user_id behavior and a single piece of prerequisite advice. Every sentence 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 read-only list endpoint with an output schema present and only one required parameter, the description covers purpose, return content, optional user scoping, and how to source the key pid. No critical gap remains for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema covers all three parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a meaningful workflow hint (obtain pid via get_user_watchlists) and clarifies user_id's role for viewing other users, which goes beyond the schema text in guiding correct invocation.

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 states the exact operation: retrieving all stocks in a watchlist group, and specifies the return payload (stock codes and names). It clearly differentiates this from the funds/cube siblings by scoping to '自选股' (stocks).

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?

It gives a concrete usage workflow: call get_user_watchlists first to obtain pid, and explains when to pass user_id (to view another user's watchlist). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as get_watchlist_funds, but the stock scoping provides clear context.

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