list_symbols

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read operation ('取得' - get) but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, sorting, or what 'available' means (e.g., active symbols only). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple list operation, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 (0 params, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., format, fields), behavioral constraints, or how it fits with siblings. For a list tool in a financial context, more context on scope and output is needed.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't add parameter details (none needed), but it implies no filtering is required, which aligns with the empty schema. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters.

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 '利用可能な銘柄一覧を取得' (Get available symbol list) clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('取得' - get) and resource ('銘柄一覧' - symbol list). It distinguishes from siblings like get_price_on_date or get_yearly_summary by focusing on listing rather than price analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from compare_symbols which might also involve symbols.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used before price-related tools or instead of compare_symbols for basic symbol discovery.

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