섹터 목록 조회

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses ordering guarantees (depth ascending, then numeric sectorId ascending), the fact that one stock can belong to multiple sectors, hierarchy reconstruction via `parentSectorId`, data volatility, and the SECTOR rate-limit group. These are behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from 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?

One-line summary followed by four tight bullets, each covering a distinct concern (classification model, hierarchy fields, sort order, caching/consumption). Front-loaded and every line carries information the agent would otherwise have to discover empirically.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return shape — and it does, explaining the hierarchical fields, ordering, and cardinality relationship to stocks. Nothing an agent needs to call this zero-parameter tool and use its results is missing.

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 takes no parameters, so the schema offers nothing to explain and the baseline is 4. The description does go further by defining the semantics of returned fields (`depth` levels 0/1/2 and `parentSectorId` traversal), which is useful context even though it strictly concerns output rather than inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (섹터 목록 조회) plus the scope: the entire Toss Securities sector classification returned with hierarchy in one call. The closing note that other sector APIs take their `sectorId` from this list distinguishes it from neighbors like toss_get_sector and toss_get_sector_stocks without needing the schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage context: use this list as the source of `sectorId` inputs for other sector APIs, and cache it once a day since it rarely changes. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools it complements nor state when not to call it, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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