获取我的自选分组

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds a meaningful auth requirement (valid login state) and clarifies the data scope. No behavioral claims contradict 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the resource, the scope, the contained categories, and the auth requirement. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

With zero parameters, a rich annotation set (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and an output schema available, the description is complete for an agent. It supplies the only critical missing operation-facing context: that a valid login is required and that this is the user's own full grouping list.

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 and the schema is fully covered, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adequately addresses the operation without needing to describe parameter details.

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 a specific action (get the watchlist groups) and a specific scope (currently logged-in user). It also clarifies that the result spans all categories—stocks, follow portfolios, funds—which visually distinguishes it from category-specific tools like get_watchlist_stocks and get_watchlist_funds.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when the target is the current user's complete set of watchlist groups. It also states the login requirement as a prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the scope is specific enough to infer usage.

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