tickory_list_symbols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool lists symbols with filters, but lacks details on read-only nature, pagination, auth requirements, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a list tool.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource followed by filters. No unnecessary words.

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 (no required params, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It covers the core purpose and filters. However, it omits default behavior (e.g., returns all symbols without filters) or limits, but the output schema likely handles return structure.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description repeats 'optional filters for exchange, contract type, and search query' without adding new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action 'list' and the resource 'tracked symbols', and specifies optional filters for exchange, contract type, and search query. This makes the purpose explicit and distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with relays, scans, and alerts.

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 implies usage for filtering symbols, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. Given the sibling tools are unrelated, the usage context is clear enough but could be improved with explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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