list_watchlist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states it lists thresholds but doesn't disclose whether there are environment-specific behaviors, whether 'locally configured' implies it may differ across environments, or any formatting/pagination of the returned list. For a param-less read tool this is modest, but there's no return structure explanation despite an output schema existing.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the verb 'List' and immediately identifies the resource. 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?

With zero parameters, no annotations needed beyond what's implied, and an output schema present, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke this tool. A minor gap is lack of differentiation from check_watchlist, but for a simple param-less list operation this is near-complete.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to elaborate on. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description correctly conveys the tool takes no inputs by its nature (listing operation).

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?

Description uses specific verb 'List' with resource 'locally configured watchlist thresholds.' The 'locally configured' qualifier adds scoping that helps distinguish from siblings like check_watchlist, though it doesn't explicitly compare against sibling 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?

No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. The sibling list includes check_watchlist, which presumably evaluates thresholds, and add_to_watchlist/remove_from_watchlist. The description gives no context for when listing is appropriate, though the scoped nature (locally configured) implies it's a read-only inspection tool.

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