tv_health_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It specifies the local address (127.0.0.1:9222) and network behavior (no external requests). However, it does not describe failure modes (e.g., connection refused) or the exact format of 'current chart state', leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose and connection details in the first sentence, then adds constraints in the second. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose.

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 simple, parameterless tool, the description covers the core action and constraints. However, it lacks details on the return format of 'current chart state' and does not mention error behavior, which would improve completeness given no output schema.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema already defines all parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline according to rules is 3. The tool has no parameters, so no further semantics are needed.

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 specific verbs ('Check') and identifies the resource ('local CDP connection to TradingView Desktop', 'current chart state'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like chart_get_state by emphasizing the connection check aspect in the tool name and description.

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 states the tool is 'Local-only' and 'performs no external network requests', providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or suggest alternative tools like chart_get_state for just reading chart state without a health check.

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