robinhood_get_watchlist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states only 'Get stocks in a watchlist,' which is a read operation, but does not confirm idempotency, authentication needs, or any side effects. The minimal description fails to provide safety guarantees beyond the obvious.

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 extremely concise at five words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it could include a brief note on what the output contains or the parameter's impact without becoming verbose, making it slightly under-informative for a perfect score.

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 (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description is minimally adequate. It does not mention the output format (though it can be inferred from the output schema) and lacks integration with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement in guidance.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter, including a default value. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'stocks in a watchlist,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like robinhood_get_portfolio or robinhood_get_positions. However, it lacks specificity about what details of the stocks are returned (e.g., symbols only or full data), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 like robinhood_get_positions or robinhood_get_portfolio. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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