USE WHEN navigating a large documentation file before reading a specific section. Returns a newline-separated list of # and ## headers (### excluded) in the file. AFTER calling this tool, call get_section(path, header) with a header from this list. Data sourced from bundled Pine Script v6 documentation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Documentation file path (e.g., 'reference/functions/ta.md'). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral nuance by specifying the output format ('newline-separated') and the exact header levels included/excluded ('# and ## headers (### excluded)'), which is not inferable from annotations or the parameter schema. This goes beyond the baseline, though it doesn't disclose additional side effects or dependencies beyond the documented workflow.
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 compact and front-loaded with the most important usage signal ('USE WHEN'). It contains only three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: when to use, what it returns, and what to do next. No wasted words or redundancy.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter tool with strong annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and no output schema. The description fully covers the tool's purpose, usage context, output format, and follow-up action. For a tool of this complexity, the description is complete and leaves no critical ambiguity.
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 schema covers the single 'path' parameter with a clear example, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no new syntax or format details for the parameter itself, but it does show how 'path' is used together with get_section, which provides mild contextual value. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full 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 states a specific action: 'Returns a newline-separated list of # and ## headers (### excluded) in the file.' This clearly identifies the tool as a list operation on headers within a documentation file. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly framing when to use it (before reading a specific section) and pointing to get_section for subsequent retrieval.
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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'USE WHEN navigating a large documentation file before reading a specific section.' It also prescribes the next step: 'AFTER calling this tool, call get_section(path, header) with a header from this list.' This clearly tells an agent when to use this tool and how to follow up, differentiating it from alternatives like get_section.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_doc reads full files, get_section reads specific sections, list_docs and list_sections provide navigation, search_docs and resolve_topic offer different search methods, get_functions and validate_function handle function lookup, and get_prompt/list_prompts cover prompts. No two tools overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern consistently (e.g., get_doc, list_sections, search_docs). The naming convention is uniform with lowercase and underscores, making it predictable and easy for an agent to infer behavior.
With 10 tools, the count is well-scoped for a documentation and function lookup server. It provides sufficient coverage without being overwhelming, fitting within the ideal range of 3-15 tools.
The tool surface comprehensively covers documentation discovery, reading, searching, navigation, and function validation. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of accessing Pine Script v6 documentation and functions.