get_watchlist

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool uses the logged-in session, which is an important dependency, and it describes the return output in terms of watchlist names, symbols, and section-header grouping. A 'Get' verb implies a read operation; it does not detail failure modes, but for a simple zero-parameter read this is reasonable.

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, no filler. The first sentence states what the tool does and what it returns; the second adds the important session dependency. Every word 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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete: it tells the agent what data is returned (watchlist names, symbols, section-grouped) and the key runtime prerequisite (logged-in session). No output schema is provided, but the description covers the essential return structure well enough for an agent to decide whether to call it.

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 accepts zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to add. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies here.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the exact resource (user's TradingView watchlists), and explains what is included (names, symbols, grouped by section headers). This clearly differentiates it from the many sibling market-data and analysis tools.

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 makes clear that this tool is for retrieving the current user's watchlists and that it relies on the app's logged-in session, which is a useful prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but no sibling tool appears to target watchlists, so the usage context is adequate.

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